Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on February 06, 2012, 06:04:34 PM
-
Hi folks,
A thread for your F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet Ideas and Inspiration.
To start with, here are some concepts that were looked at before the Super Hornet was finalised:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/File0326.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/CanardHornet.gif)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/SuperF-18.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/image020.jpg)
-
Some thoughts: if the YF-17 had won the LWF contest would we have seen essentially what became the F/A-18 Cobra enter USAF service? Would we then ultimately see these entering service with multiple users around the world? Would the Japanese F-2 be essentially the Super
Hornet Cobra?
...isn't it interesting how one's mind rambles from one idea to the next? ;D
-
Well, the production F-17 would have looked similar to the F-18, but with a spine similar to that of the YF-17 (you can see it in the family tree drawing that appears in a number of F-18 books). What would've been equally interesting would be the F-18L outcompeting the F-16 (in the "Sale of the Century" and elsewhere) and an equivalent Super Hornet version of it appearing.
-
One would have thought with the land-based nations buying the type (ie: Canada, Australia, Spain, et al) that the F-18L would have had merit as a production line rather than the baseline A and later C. I'm sure the type would have conferred advantages over its naval sibling.
Regards,
John
-
Maybe the Cobra would have been a single-engine jet powered by F100 turbofan? ???
-
F/A-18XL! A Super Hornet-version of this would be the F/A-18XXL.
The top view is a modified version of something Greg did, with the fins moved further out, into the wing.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F18XL-2.gif)
Maybe the Cobra would have been a single-engine jet powered by F100 turbofan? ???
With a single F-16-sytle intake, the LERXes and the (then) more pronounced humpback completing the image of a Cobra! :)
-
With a single F-16-sytle intake, the LERXes and the (then) more pronounced humpback completing the image of a Cobra! :)
Well personally I was thinking straightforward of developing the YF-17 from the P-610 because I thought the lateral intakes are too iconic of the F-17 and F/A-18 to easily replace...... ;D
-
F/A-18XL! A Super Hornet-version of this would be the F/A-18XXL.
The top view is a modified version of something Greg did, with the fins moved further out, into the wing.
([url]http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F18XL-2.gif[/url])
That really needs to be built some day...
-
Maybe the Cobra would have been a single-engine jet powered by F100 turbofan? ???
Actually, for the LWF competition, there was a version of the design powered by a single F100, but the twin YJ101 version was preferred by the USAF. I suspect the Northrop data in the Western Museum of Flight would have info, but I'm not in a position to check. Anyone here in the LA area?
-
Some interesting info on the F-18L posted by BillRo over on Secret Projects. I really find the Sparrows on the wingtips interesting as I don't recall ever seeing such a configuration on a Hornet (of any variation) before:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/F-18LDataLR.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/F-18LMockup.jpg)
-
Single tail Legacy bird.
-
Um...... Sparrows on the wingtips......
-
Interesting (and inspiring hopefully) photo posted by Thrax over on Secret Projects of a YF-17 in Greek markings. It was apparently painted like that during the selection of HAF s 3rd gen fighter in mid 80's.
(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5515/f18lgz5.jpg)
-
Saw Super Hornet perform at airshow today. With high humidity we saw the clouds on wings during high speed pass and turn.
High angle low speed pass also impressive.
-
Just a thought for a subtle whif, either a F/A-18L or a full-up production F-17 (main difference would be in the spine) in USN Agressor squadron markings. Particularly with the F/A-18L, I wonder how long it'd take folk to notice?
-
(http://a.modellversium.de/galerie/bilder/7/7/6/9776-tumb.jpg) (http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html)
NASA F-18 HARV (High Alpha Research Vehicle) (http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html) built by Thomas Brückelt from the 1/72nd scale Heller F-18 Hornet kit. Additional images and build article can be viewed at modellversium.de (http://www.modellversium.de/) by clicking on the html or thumbnail image.
-
Am I the only one that thought "X-wing cannons" when looking at the wingtips? 8)
-
Am I the only one that thought "X-wing cannons" when looking at the wingtips? 8)
Shush!!! You did not see anything...understand??? ;)
-
Am I the only one that thought "X-wing cannons" when looking at the wingtips? 8)
Shush!!! You did not see anything...understand??? ;)
Ummm...why is there a black sedan across the street? If I don't come back avenge me!
...and don't fight over my stash!
-
Stash?? Did someone say Stash?? What are we talking about here...this may determine whether you live or die... ;) :icon_swat:
-
It could maybe fill 1/8 of a shipping container....is that enough oh king of the stashes?
-
Some interesting stuff here : http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/Contest006.htm (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/Contest006.htm)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/entries/Category1/CF-18_MARX.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/entries/Category1/CF-18_Northrop_Grumman_Trident.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/entries/Category1/CF-18_F-U-2_EH.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Contests/001-100/001-010/006/entries/Category1/CF-18_SEA_F-18.jpg)
-
It could maybe fill 1/8 of a shipping container....is that enough oh king of the stashes?
Well! is that a 20 foot one or a 40 foot one ----- could make a difference ;D
-
Only Bahrain and Upper Yours placed an order
hehehe
-
Swept wing hornet. ???
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/F-18S-SharpHornet-sweptwing.jpg[/url])
Beautiful! :)
-
Sweet! Now put some canards on that bird.
-
i found this image of the Northrop F-18L in an Issue of Flight International from 1979 8)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn292/Nilssteyaert/misc/F18L.jpg)
another stealhy adaption of the Super hornet as proposed to India, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (International Roadmap)
changes include Conformal Feultanks, internal weapons bays (in pod on the centerline) and an IRST sensor under the nose among others.
it was also expected to have an F-35 style cockpit.
Aero India: Boeing's advanced Super Hornet upgrade options (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE3h8yImm4U#ws)
(http://http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn292/Nilssteyaert/misc/F18L.jpg)
(http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/BOEING1.jpg)
(http://mymodelplanes.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hornet-new.jpg)
-
^ Good stuff! Hope they'll carry through with this.
Can the CFTs be carried on any Super Hornet or just newly built ones? In case of the F-16, the CFTs can only be carried on pre-configured airframes. Retrofitting them to older Vipers would be too costly as it would entail an almost complete rebuild.
-
The conformal tanks certainly make the F-18 look more muscular.
-
During a recent Shipbucket-style brainstorming session, a couple of things came back on my mind.
This is one:
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/F-18S_1.jpg)
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/F-18S_2.jpg)
=======================================================
And another...... I remember someone expressing his belief that the F/A-18E/F is about the size that the original Hornet should have been. I forgot the logic that was brought up behind the sentiment (although it came to pass as he expressed his disagreement about half a decade ago on the notion of Super Hornet being the Tomcat replacement), but does anyone have his/her own take on it?
-
Some interesting info on the F-18L posted by BillRo over on Secret Projects. I really find the Sparrows on the wingtips interesting as I don't recall ever seeing such a configuration on a Hornet (of any variation) before:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/F-18LDataLR.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/F-18LMockup.jpg[/url])
I remember reading that the reason the Sparrows were fitted to the fuselage and the sidewinders on the wing tips of F/A-18A/B was due to ease of handling on the flight deck, i.e. the heavy Sparrows would be fitted when the wings were folded, even below deck, and the Sidewinders fitted as the wings were unfolded on the flight deck mandraulically.
-
(http://cavok.com.br/blog/wp-contents/uploads/2011/11/Super_Hornet_International_Roadmap.jpg)
International Roadmap SH
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/9479_10200205191235064_1380875017_n.jpg)
Made even more what if!
-
(http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/1/3/66584_1348110310.jpg)
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/kap64/airshows/VFC-12%20Sept%202012/DSC07528.jpg)
(http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/7/0/81926_1343738076.jpg)
:-* Possibly the coolest Hornet I have ever seen. That Su-35 splinter scheme seems to look great on anything
-
Well over 10 years ago before ever hearing about the F-18L, I'd started a USAF F/A-18C Fatback from the Monogram kit. The wing folds were removed and the spine had no taper towards the midline as it went aft. It was largely engraved too...and then some medical issues got in the way and the project died. It's around somewhere still and hope to get it restarted some day.
-
Boeing flies prototype of Advanced Super Hornet configuration
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/9474925200_1e74b275e8_b.jpg)
Boeing and its industry partners are flying a prototype of the Advanced Super Hornet complete with conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pods and signature enhancements.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Paint orange. Refit for remote control.
Target drones--how the whole damn Plastic Bug production run belongs IMO!
-
(http://skiesmag.com/news/article_files/751560272648931.jpg)
-
Coming soon:
(http://www.thebaseleg.com/photos/i-jvbLMB4/0/O/i-jvbLMB4.jpg)
-
Very stylistic, but it's a fantastic profile.
Cheers,
Logan
-
F-18XL
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f-18xl_2.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/f-18xl_2.jpeg.html)
-
F-18XS "Hornette" (my "old" "drawing")
(http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/091/4/0/f_18xs_air_bears_by_perttime-d4ukz0o.png)
-
F-18XL
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/f-18xl_2.jpeg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/f-18xl_2.jpeg.html[/url])
Check out pg 1 of this thread. Great minds think alike! :)
-
F-18XS "Hornette" (my "old" "drawing")
([url]http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/091/4/0/f_18xs_air_bears_by_perttime-d4ukz0o.png[/url])
I love this small fighter. A modern re-edition of XF-85 Goblin? ;)
-
Will use that bar code camo on some build :)
-
Coming soon:
([url]http://www.thebaseleg.com/photos/i-jvbLMB4/0/O/i-jvbLMB4.jpg[/url])
Almost enough to make you join up!
-
hmm.. here are some of my 1/32 offerings..
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946568_10201151657495798_516412456_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/941389_10201151665535999_2042677578_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/21134_10201151665095988_1252259842_n.jpg)
and I guess the one that's most relevant in this forum is the Iranian P530
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/189685_1909307054636_8002923_n.jpg)
-
Nice work.
-
Random ideas:
Hornet and/or Super Hornet in this scheme:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg)
-
Thoughts of putting P-530/YF-17 features into a Monogram Hornet have been in Ye Olde Noggin for a while. smaller radome, cone intakes, revised LERX, wings, and stabs.
-
If you can find an old Entex "F-18" you're about halfway there. I don't know who did the original release, I am sure Entex was a rebox. Anyway, it was based on some mockups and is closer to the F-17 than other models. BTW, it is in 1/72.
-
Continuing the presumption the US Army deployed fixed wing aircraft and continuing the presumption elmeyerle's OF-5F saw service, how about a variant based on the ATARS F/A-18D. And for some visually distinguishing features, remove the wing folds and put a dog tooth on the leading edge.
-
Continuing the presumption the US Army deployed fixed wing aircraft and continuing the presumption elmeyerle's OF-5F saw service, how about a variant based on the ATARS F/A-18D. And for some visually distinguishing features, remove the wing folds and put a dog tooth on the leading edge.
You're getting close to the F/A-18L configuration. An Army two-seater with those differences (including the extra hardpoint under each wing) could look sharp. I'd argue that it's a toss-up as to whether they'd go with the F/A-18L's simpler main landing gear or go with the stock F/A-18 landing gear.
-
A different sort of weapons load out:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m42/shadow7577/hornetcloud.jpg)
-
A different sort of weapons load out:
([url]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m42/shadow7577/hornetcloud.jpg[/url])
That load out and more importantly the out of site systems upgrades and networking to the various new force multipliers really puts the lie to the nay sayers who protest the RAAF have been completely left behind buy the proliferation of Sukhios through the region. Start supplementing them with Growlers and the IOC F-35As in the coming decade and an opforce would need significantly more than just dozens of SUs the be the critical threat some propose they are.
-
Interesting...I was just reading that when they set up the production of F/A-18 Hornets in Australia in the '80s the Australian Government hoped that Singapore and New Zealand would purchase Australian-built Hornets. Might make for some interesting whiffs.
-
We also hoped the Kiwis would buy Mirages from us.
There was a suggestion during the late 80s early 90s that Canada was looking to buy beween 30 and 50 low hour RAAF A and B models and that Australia would switch production to the C/D for the replacement frames for the RAAF possibly following on with an aditional batch of Night Attack D models to replace the F-111. Surrounding this was also discussion of providing the remaining A and B frames to NZ at a knock down price and exporting Ds to Malaysia. May have my wires crossed on the later though.
Would have been interesting if production could have been stretched through to the E/F coming on line instead of going for the HUG BUGs.
Still go F-35 but do so as a final assembly partner transitioning from a hot SH line.
-
That Canadian proposal lasted about five minutes until the exchange rate changed and US company said "No!" pointing out the licenses for manufacture prevented Australia marketing their Hornets anywhere outside of Oceania. They weren't going to lose their Canadian business, which was a real shame because I've long been a proponent of greater defence co-operation between Canada and Australia. We are both a "good fit" for each other, with similar societies, similar viewpoints on world affairs and similar histories.
-
Definitely a dumb move on MD part as the deal was for used Hornets to Canada and new improved ones to Australia, I.e an extra 30 to 100 airframes all up that they would have received licensing fees on instead they got zero fees for zero additional aircraft, smart move not!
imagine how many extra sales they could have swung out of a hot line in Australia in the long run based on the same model. Friendly neighbour needs new aircraft, cant afford the latest and greastest but the friendly neighborhood RAAF has several dozen near new Hornets and a current production line to replace them. Win win.
Do it with the A and B repeat with C and D then E and F
-
Clearly a case of "penny wise, pound foolish" but how often do we see short-sighted thinking resulting in the "cutting off off one's own nose to spite one's face"? I seem to remember the deal was for new manufactured F/A-18As from Oz though, not used ones, which is why McD were jealous of losing money to downunder (this was before the F/A-18C was even in prototype form IIRC, back in 1986. When was our dollar floated, which saw it go through the floor value wise? It was getting about $Au1.00 to $US0.60 at the time, which is why it made so much sense. Yet at the time, the Government of the day was severely criticised for floating it, yet today the same people are screaming for the exchange rate to return to that level. ;) ).
-
There may have been more than one deal as I am certain the one I am familiar with came about when Canada realised their current usage rates would preclude the then planned service life for the fleet following the delivery of their final airframes. USN were seen as unsuitable due to additional fatigue racked up with carrier landings, McD had already switched over to the C/D leaving only Spain and Australia. Australia was the better option as their fleet was newer with lower hours and with an active line there were other possibilities open.
Looking back Australia had quite a few oportunities that didnt get up for a variety of reasons. Offers to manufacture and market Mirage F1 and Hawk come to mind and then there were some of the shipbuilding deals, including barters that were very interesting. Post Falklands the RN needed a new pair of LSLs long out of build in the UK but in Australia we had just built the Tobruk, based on the LSL design, the rumored deal was Australia builds two modified LSLs for the RN and the UK builds a modified Invincible for the RAN. Plans to build a carrier locally before Invincible was offered as surplus, plans to build a minimum of 6 FFGs locally, M Class instead of FFGs, Amazons built earlier.
Considering how much was on offer it is stuning that so little actually ever came about, politicians across the board need a slapping.
-
A different sort of weapons load out:
Well, depending on which party gets to be in control of Canada, that could very well be a look into our future airforce --- :-X
-
There was a suggestion during the late 80s early 90s that Canada was looking to buy beween 30 and 50 low hour RAAF A and B models and that Australia would switch production to the C/D for the replacement frames for the RAAF possibly following on with an aditional batch of Night Attack D models to replace the F-111.
The Canadian interest was in 1988. it involved an approach from the Canadian Govt for approx 25 new-built Australian Hornets. The reason being that Australia still produced the A/B model (the basis for the Canadian CF-188) whereas the US line had moved onto the C/D. If it had been taken up, the Canadian order would have extended the production programme by approx 18mths.
-
Well, depending on which party gets to be in control of Canada, that could very well be a look into our future airforce --- :-X
Heaven help your pilots if they don't do a major (read very expensive) re-lifing. The RAAF Hornets (which have similar fatigue etc) have been deemed far too expensive to keep in service beyond 2021 (and that is the s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d target achieved through a number of compromises already) with a re-lifing being the more expensive option than simply replacing. Hence the desire to get the F-35 soon (first aircraft rolls off production line this July ;)).
-
My sentiments exactly Greg, even if you do consider that 75% of the CF-188's are in storage or in the process of being 're-lifed', I still think they need to be replaced.
-
The costs to keep them in service longer also includes increased maintenance costs for engines and other systems which isn't necessarily inexpensive.
-
There was a suggestion during the late 80s early 90s that Canada was looking to buy beween 30 and 50 low hour RAAF A and B models and that Australia would switch production to the C/D for the replacement frames for the RAAF possibly following on with an aditional batch of Night Attack D models to replace the F-111.
The Canadian interest was in 1988. it involved an approach from the Canadian Govt for approx 25 new-built Australian Hornets. The reason being that Australia still produced the A/B model (the basis for the Canadian CF-188) whereas the US line had moved onto the C/D. If it had been taken up, the Canadian order would have extended the production programme by approx 18mths.
Cool thanks for that, I suppose the rest of it was probably spectulation at the time on the part of the mag I read it in.
-
The costs to keep them in service longer also includes increased maintenance costs for engines and other systems which isn't necessarily inexpensive.
Something politicians never seem to comprehend, upfront purchase price is a very small part of the whole through life cost of ownership and sometimes replacement is the most cost effective option. Infact a smart operator could factor a sustainable supply line for replacements into their sustainment model and opt for smaller more frequently replaced batches instead of upgrades and large (allegedly but usually far from) homogeneous fleets.
For instance had Australia opted for a batch A and B followed by one of C and D and a third of D to keep production running through the 90s at a slower rate it is conceivable that production could have switched to the E and F ( or another type) in the late 90s early 2000s to replace rather than upgrade the by then 15 to 20 year old and in need of centre barrel replacement A and B models in the HUG program. Looks expensive and would not be cheap, but if you graph capability vs cost early replacement backed buy sustainable production is usuall much better value for money in the long run.
-
In their defence:
- it is rarely the politicians that make these decisions - usually it is the result of those, often uniformed personnel, who advise them and provide the details of the options; and
- more importantly, it is not that easy to know for certain what is the correct option. For instance, an upgrade can be better if it allows a faster end result whilst allowing the maintenance of existing infrastructure/support base. It will also typically depend upon the age of the platform and the nature of the upgrade. Other times, an off the shelf purchase of new platforms can be more effective if done quickly and offering enough of a capability improvement to justify the additional up front expense.
Even when looking at straight new acquisitions, one can get it wrong. For instance with the ARA Eurocopter Tiger ARHs, the upfront acquisition was a no-brainier...at the time. The Tiger was, at the time, roughly half the price (due to a combination of offered price and exchange rates) when compared to platforms such as the Cobra or Apache. It also seemingly offered a better development potential being at the start of its life rather than the other two which were seen to be nearing the end of theirs. However, years later and with all the pain and delays witnessed, many would say that the Tiger was the wrong decision. The benefit of hindsight...
Getting back to the Hornet: does anyone want to profile up a RSAF F/A-18?
-
Yes but batch buys gives far mre wiff fodder ;)
-
Yes but batch buys gives far mre wiff fodder ;)
Touché.
-
Also look at the less glamorous fleets, transports, MPAs, ISR, trainers and others. You have a dozen of these half a dozen of those etc. Often unique airframes or multiple marks and a range of ages and configurations of outwardly similar airframes. This is managed and supported.
For the air combat force you would still concentrate the different marks and configurations within specific wings and squadrons limiting the adverse effect on frontline support. You would never want a F/A-18A flying in the same Sqn as Fs but in the same airforce, different units, no problem.
Anyway, I will pull my head in now and stop derailing the thread. Its just that picture you posted brought back to me the costs associated with HUG and CBR and that if we had batched our buys and planned for a mid 2000s replacement batch there would not have been the need for the upgrade. The C and D s already had the new systems and beefed up structures and an E/F buy would have filled the rest of the gap, leaving us ready now, stress free to introduce the F-35 to service.
-
Given this commenting the other thread:
... watching the Australian F1 GP, bored stupid, annoying Greg on the Hornet thread.
Maybe you will appreciate this photo:
(http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/b0/3f/00013fb0.jpeg)
-
Odd thought, I wonder how many of the F/A-18E/F systems and, in some cases, discrete components, could be fitted to the F/A-18A/B fleet as part of a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) action such as replacing the "barrel section" of the A/B aircraft (perhaps even making it a CILOP - Conversion In Lieu Of Procurement program). You might well end up with something equivalent to the USN's F/A18A++/B++ where the new systems reduce weight enough to improve performance and capability.
Getting back to the topic of alternate users, I could see RNZAF aircraft in the same scheme as the late schemes applied to the A-4K's as well or RSAF ones in a scheme analogous to what's on their late-model F-16's.
-
Given this commenting the other thread:
... watching the Australian F1 GP, bored stupid, annoying Greg on the Hornet thread.
Maybe you will appreciate this photo:
([url]http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/b0/3f/00013fb0.jpeg[/url])
was litterally just watching that
-
Odd thought, I wonder how many of the F/A-18E/F systems and, in some cases, discrete components, could be fitted to the F/A-18A/B fleet as part of a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) action such as replacing the "barrel section" of the A/B aircraft (perhaps even making it a CILOP - Conversion In Lieu Of Procurement program). You might well end up with something equivalent to the USN's F/A18A++/B++ where the new systems reduce weight enough to improve performance and capability.
Getting back to the topic of alternate users, I could see RNZAF aircraft in the same scheme as the late schemes applied to the A-4K's as well or RSAF ones in a scheme analogous to what's on their late-model F-16's.
seriously it would be in Australia’s interest to be a good neighbor and cascade combat aircraft to NZ. Make it as affordable for them as possible by sharing our support structures and reap the benefits of bringing along our highly capable and friends who are hamstrung by budgets.
-
What's the weapons load-out of that blue thing in the foreground? ;)
-
seriously it would be in Australia’s interest to be a good neighbor and cascade combat aircraft to NZ. Make it as affordable for them as possible by sharing our support structures and reap the benefits of bringing along our highly capable and friends who are hamstrung by budgets.
Do NZ have ANY combat aircraft these days? I thought that all came to an end when they got rid of thr A-4s.
-
NZ still has P-3K2s plus SH-2G(NZ)s. They don't have any combat jets though...and arguably don't need them.
-
What's the weapons load-out of that blue thing in the foreground? ;)
Classified...but my team have made parts that are on it. ;)
-
What's the weapons load-out of that blue thing in the foreground? ;)
Classified...but my team have made parts that are on it. ;)
My previous team supplied all its test systems and the moving floor of their wind tunnel (a mere $5m to you sir...) and then they had the nerve to steal one of my Field Service Engineers! I saw him on the TV in the Melbourne pits this morning. :(
-
The Oz Hornets were 'assembled' in Oz from components sourced from the US, Spain and Oz.
The Australian built components were built under sub-contractor agreements with the US
manufacturers under specific US government foreign military support rules. Extending the
program would have required a lot of negotiations between all parties. Turning the operation
into a true manufacturer of the F-18 would have required a whole lot of money and major
agreements.
The major differences between the A/B series and the C/D were equipment rather than structure,
it was a block number re-designation, so if McDonnell were willing to continue supplying major
structural components, it wouldn't have required major changes in the Oz production facility.
Aside from the political considerations the big if would have been the McDonnel board, literally
in the name McDonnell, based on history, they would not have been interested in creating a
competitor.
-
Still a shame as this plan would have seen a larger fleet built and supported over a longer period of time and would also have increased the opportunity / likelihood of additional sales to existing and new customers. No need to have set up GAF / ASTA as competitor, maintain them as an assembler and supplier to increase regional support.
Then again if memory serves me correctly McD threw away sales to Israel and South Korea during the late 80s and early 90s through poor industry support offers and offsets. The orders were theirs for the taking but failed to make it as good value for the customer as GD / Lockheed was able to.
Do I have the right way of this with my thinking? McD management greed and lack of vision cost them orders and customers? Can't see Boeing making the same mistakes these days.
-
No, greed and lack of vision make Boeing make other mistakes like rushing the 787 into service in the face of competition from Airbus. I wonder am I mistaken in perceiving that US manufacturing has become fat and complacent in middle-age and finds it hard to compete against new, fitter and upcoming competitors? :icon_surprised:
-
Well, I will say that, IMHO, my present employer went through that and is now engaged in getting back into fighting trim. Some of the other US manufacturers are facing the same choice (from what I gather, Textron has put Cessna through this and likely will shake up Beechcraft, too - the latter company badly needs it).
-
No, greed and lack of vision make Boeing make other mistakes like rushing the 787 into service in the face of competition from Airbus. I wonder am I mistaken in perceiving that US manufacturing has become fat and complacent in middle-age and finds it hard to compete against new, fitter and upcoming competitors? :icon_surprised:
Umm, Boeing management made mistakes on the 787 but lack of vision was not one of them.
The 787 has more "all new" in one package than any other civil airliner in the past fifty years, which
is what lead to some of the problems. Questionable upper level decisions made a mess and caused delays, rather than a rushed process. A number of problems were caused by equipment and system suppliers (not the build partners) making promises that they couldn't keep, and they weren't all
'US manufacturers'. Of the build partners the one with the most serious problems was Italian.
Dunno where you got the idea that the 787 was 'rushed into service'.
As to perceptions, what goes on looks a lot different from the inside.
-
If anything I thought the 787 was delayed into service.
-
Plenty of good YF-17 photos here - click on the image below to go to the link. Make sure to click on the images there too since they contain detailed descriptions.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/8280981369_69d33b9e0c_o_d_zpsfc6a9f80.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52810288@N05/sets/72157632266352129/)
-
Nice find.
-
A different look the YF-17 & F/A-18 could have taken - the single-engine P-610:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/NorthropP-61002_zpsce4d88ca.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/NorthropP-61003_zps67e2e549.jpg)
-
Got to admit the twin layout suits it better.
-
Stumbled over this:
([url]http://a.modellversium.de/galerie/bilder/7/7/6/9776-tumb.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html[/url])
NASA F-18 HARV (High Alpha Research Vehicle) ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html[/url]) built by Thomas Brückelt from the 1/72nd scale Heller F-18 Hornet kit. Additional images and build article can be viewed at modellversium.de ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/[/url]) by clicking on the html or thumbnail image.
Am I the only one that thought "X-wing cannons" when looking at the wingtips? 8)
What has been imagined, cannot be unimagined! :o
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/T-18_zpsf17e4311.png)
;D
-
A different look the YF-17 & F/A-18 could have taken - the single-engine P-610:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/NorthropP-61002_zpsce4d88ca.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/NorthropP-61003_zps67e2e549.jpg[/url])
I wonder if a production version of that could be modeled by combining a F-18 kit with a F-16 one? It would get rather challenging, even so. Too, I can just imagine one with a diverter-less inlet as trialed on the JIST testbed.
-
Stumbled over this:
([url]http://a.modellversium.de/galerie/bilder/7/7/6/9776-tumb.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html[/url])
NASA F-18 HARV (High Alpha Research Vehicle) ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/8-flugzeuge-modern/9776-mcdonnell-douglas-f-a-18-harv-heller.html[/url]) built by Thomas Brückelt from the 1/72nd scale Heller F-18 Hornet kit. Additional images and build article can be viewed at modellversium.de ([url]http://www.modellversium.de/[/url]) by clicking on the html or thumbnail image.
Am I the only one that thought "X-wing cannons" when looking at the wingtips? 8)
What has been imagined, cannot be unimagined! :o
([url]http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/T-18_zpsf17e4311.png[/url])
;D
This needs to be built!
How would the wings fold to fit on a carrier deck? ;)
-
Upper wings fold up and then the lower wings fold up to lie against them? It might take some careful positioning, but it's doable.
-
I don't have any F-18 kits on hand. :icon_crap: Something cheap would do, considering the amount of hacking involved!
-
That is wonderful :-*
-
See if you can get one of Dragon's 1/144 twin pack Super Bugs. Usually $10-15 and you get 2 full birds and plenty of ordnance.
-
I love the X-wing version! :)
-
Random idea: a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with the recon nose pack of the the RF-18:
(http://www.aerofiles.com/mdd-rf18.jpg)
-
Been thinking, yes I know its dangerous (hurts too), so here it is, not only does the USMC use the D for FAC and CAS the USAF adopts it as a replacement for the A-10 (and the A-7 in the ANG). Another thought, F/A-18C being selected as the ANGs new fighter / interceptor instead of the F-16.
-
GTX_Admin
To start with, here are some concepts that were looked at before the Super Hornet was finalised:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/File0326.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Artic/image020.jpg[/url][/quote]Looks better than the Super Hornet the USN ended up with. I personally think it's fantastic looking.
[quote]In their defence:
[list type=decimal]
[li]it is rarely the politicians that make these decisions - usually it is the result of those, often uniformed personnel, who advise them and provide the details of the options[/li]
[/list]
[/quote]Very true -- frankly the advisor is often more powerful than the politician.
[quote][img]http://s37.photobucket.com/user/GTwiner/media/NorthropP-61002_zpsce4d88ca.jpg.html)
I really like this design…
dy031101
([url]http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/F-18S_2.jpg[/url])
That's just gorgeous...
-
Did they ever play around with a single vertical fin on the Hornet?
I might come off looking like a beefed up Ching Kuo:
(http://www.defenceaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AIDC-F-CK-1-Ching-kuo-620x330.jpg)
net photo
Would it be possible to put a single fin on a Hornet without it needing enlargement to Tornado fin proportions?
-
Would it be possible to put a single fin on a Hornet without it needing enlargement to Tornado fin proportions?
It would have to be pretty big if you want it to be effective at high angle of attack. I think there's some trickery in real life Hornets to get airflow to the fins at high AoA.
You COULD add computer power and thrust vectoring to make it fly with no fin...
-
Hey, does anybody have drawnings for the P-610? interested in profiling it.
-
Hey, does anybody have drawnings for the P-610? interested in profiling it.
There's none publicly available that I am aware of. Though as you can see by this, the majority was similar to the P-600 which was developed into the YF-17:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Northrop_P-600_and_P-610_top-view_silhouettes.png)
Therefore, you may wish to start with something such as a YF-17 line art:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/northrop-yf-17-cobra_zps2gflj72j.png)
And add in a P&W F-100 and also try to draw the intake as shown in the images earlier in this thread.
-
As found on Deviantart:
(http://orig10.deviantart.net/3598/f/2014/107/b/4/rcaf_yf_17_cobra__lt__elric_by_pak_faace1234-d7evk48.jpg)
-
Thank you, im thinking on a single engine Hornet, that delivers more power.. these will be useful.
-
For modeling purposes, consider using a single 1/48 Hornet intake for modeling a 1/72 P.610. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would give you a good starting point and would meet the airflow requirements.
-
Something to inspire:
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/598.jpeg)
-
Whom is that ghostly figure in the middle of the picture? Was it you, Greg? ;)
-
Whom is that ghostly figure in the middle of the picture? Was it you, Greg? ;)
In midst of beaming in or out via transporter ?
-
P610 drawings can be found in Flying Wings and Radical Things by Tony Chong.
-
Whom is that ghostly figure in the middle of the picture? Was it you, Greg? ;)
Nope...it might be the ghost of a WW2 Airman that reported to be at Amberley ;)
-
Something to inspire:
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/598.jpeg[/url])
:-* :-*
-
Whom is that ghostly figure in the middle of the picture? Was it you, Greg? ;)
Nope...it might be the ghost of a WW2 Airman that reported to be at Amberley ;)
The Smoke Monster from 'Lost'? :)
-
I admire the effort the RAAF has gone to, but I don't like the choice of scheme. It still looks too modern for my tastes, and the blue on the rudders looks darker than I expected. Good on them, though - I don't see the RNZAF springing for any WW2/WW1-style marks on any of our aircraft.
Over at SecretProjects I saw some canard Hornet concepts. They may have been posted here before? They look very, very cool. Hornet 2000 I think?
-
More on RAAF Desert Hornet:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrjXQmgUkAAcYUm.jpg:large)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/2/3964239.jpg?v=v4e38071b056)
-
That's a peach :-*
-
YF-17 to F/A-18:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner034/main-qimg-bdcfea163303c726ab024eeb4fe70a1d-c_zps4kfk4gmm.jpeg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner034/main-qimg-b22abcd11596e18de810cdbfd334207e-c_zps5txmecaz.jpeg)
-
Very cool contributions :smiley: Love watching evolutions unfold
-
For what it's worth - here's a bunch of my 1/32 examples.
(http://uncleles.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/hornets.jpg)
-
Oh, and this:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6fed230e5a6f280fe5ab4021e28ab0ba-c)
Similar to, but slightly different from, the production F-17 proposal. I have a number of early (slotted LERX) F-18 kits to use for F-17 and F-18L variants. For these, I may swap the main gears and wheels with F-15s in order to produce navalized F-15s, too.
-
Odd thought, EF-18G fitted with the ATARS recce package developed of the "classic" Hornet. Either with video cameras or with radomes for ELINT or SLAR work.
-
Les: is that an Iranian F-17? I like it!
I remember getting quite excited about F-18L options and read up on lots of different potential operators...one day! I need to finish the R/W Aussie one I have first.
-
Les: is that an Iranian F-17? I like it!
I remember getting quite excited about F-18L options and read up on lots of different potential operators...one day! I need to finish the R/W Aussie one I have first.
Yes... sort of !
(https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/189685_1909307054636_8002923_n.jpg?oh=4708f68455a89c68774c0891623e1b97&oe=5A64AC1B)
glad you like it ! Here's more on the subject:
http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_P-530 (http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_P-530)
-
:smiley:
-
Things you can do with your EA-18G. ;D ;D
https://deadspin.com/u-s-navy-is-very-sorry-that-their-pilot-drew-a-dong-in-1820533129
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOyF6cMUQAEFaTE.jpg:large)
-
Les: is that an Iranian F-17? I like it!
I remember getting quite excited about F-18L options and read up on lots of different potential operators...one day! I need to finish the R/W Aussie one I have first.
Yes... sort of !
([url]https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/189685_1909307054636_8002923_n.jpg?oh=4708f68455a89c68774c0891623e1b97&oe=5A64AC1B[/url])
glad you like it ! Here's more on the subject:
[url]http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_P-530[/url] ([url]http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_P-530[/url])
Ive been wanting to do a "Snub" nosed Hornet for years now. It will look great if I ever get around to it as your model demonstrates :smiley:
-
One I'm surprised Les hasn't done...yet:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/FA-18ARAAF2OCU_zpsdb02fb6c.jpg)
Or maybe this one:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/FA-18ARAAFRoulettes_zps79b9da2b.jpg)
-
One I'm surprised Les hasn't done...yet:
...early days ;)
-
Blind or enhanced in other ways?
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/chirruts-staff-main_3f1fb429.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1560%2C878&width=768)
-
Here is something for all you F-18 fans
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29571162_2262309413832633_4031224082044628202_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f47cda5569b971ff6c954e0c00e3e6f8&oe=5B759AFC)
-
Does anyone have a good list of modifications needed to make an F-18L from a regular Hornet kit? I could find very little hard info on the F-18L except more views of the display model from the first page of the thread, with only enough detail to see that the model depicts a twin-seater.
So, as far as I can tell, the mods I'd need to do are these:
1. Start with a twin-seater
2. Leave off the tailhook from the lower fuselage. Possibly build a parachute fairing? (Where would it fit though...)
3. Sand off the wing fold hinges from the top and bottom off the wings
4. Somehow "skinnify" the landing gear (I'd limit myself to using a single wheel nose gear unit as I'm working in 1/72); or build it wheels up
5. Raid a Super Hornet for its outboard hardpoints, install them on the formerly folding outboard sections of the wing or at the former hinge? I'd guess something like even spacing with the other hardpoints.
6. The model depicts some strange (for a Hornet) weapons options, like wingtip Sparrows, and Rockeye-laden MERs. Then again, MERs full of Rockeyes were way more common on demonstrators than in real life...
7. What kind of camo would we be looking at? In service the F-16 and F/A-18 both ended up using the "standard" US-designed camouflages for a long time, with only a few of the later adopters using anything different from what the USAF or USN did, other than Israel. Northrop were courting Israel, so that camo is a given, but who else?
-
Start with an early F/A-18 kit that still has the slotted LERX (the original Airfix kit and the one marketed by Entex are good choices). It may not be quite accurate, but I intend to swap main gear with a F-15 that I'm navalizing. For the nose gear, you need to fill in the fuselage space for the strut on the aft side of the nose gear (fix the provided door in the closed position) and go with a single wheel nosegear (possibly raid a F-16?).
The rest is pretty much as you describe with the outboard hardpoints evenly spaced from the others. For a two-seater, you would have to add the two-seat bits to one of the kits with the slotted LERX (I don't know if any such two-seaters were kitted).
HTH,
Evan
-
The image on page one lists a Land Based Tail Hook for the L. Not sure if there's enough difference compared with the Naval one
-
This might be of use:
(https://s5.postimg.org/4ootravat/7_AF-18_L.jpg)
BTW, there would still be a tail hook - it would be for the Airfield Arrestor System. If you wanted something different from the normal F/A-18 one (though I'm not sure I would bother or that it would be distinctly different in appearance) you could borrow one from an F-16 kit.
-
Speaking of F-18Ls, what about some USAF ones:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEyIWseXoAAxfHM.jpg)
Would look cool in same scheme as worn by USAF F-16s over the years:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg)
-
One thing I've been unable to confirm is what the landing gear arrangement on the F-18L would have looked like - there are two color pictures floating around of Northrop's display model, one with the gears extended and one with them retracted. But you can't see more than the nose gear in the first one since it's from slightly above the plane.
Apparently Northrop had painted up one of the YF-17s as a "CF-18L" while trying to attract Canadian interest - but the Cobra had an entirely different landing gear well arrangement and I don't think the F-18L would be *that* different.
elmayerle mentions using F-15 nose gear, but the front gear bay is set up for that super heavy duty actuator with the extra-long landing gear bay doors. Again, the question is, would they change the whole bay door arrangement for the land-based version? That sounds like overkill to me...
Also, it looks from some of the pictures that the outboard hardpoints are just a third set of the same type. Which makes things a bit easier (have some left over, I think).
My idea right now is for a late-model F-18L in either NATO service (in the Hill scheme like the F-16); USAF service (in either the Hill scheme, overall Gunship Gray, or maybe Have Glass II or V); or Israeli camo. It would basically be an F/A-18C or D (the official Northrop display model was a twin-seater, though some of the other art suggests a single-seater), complete with bird-slicers on the nose and extra chaff/flare buckets under the belly, with the landing gear doors closed up (so I don't have to modify the landing gear...), the wing hinges sanded off, and three sets of regular Hornet hardpoints.
(If I want to be trollish, I'd do just an F/A-18D with no wing fold and extra hardpoints, and paint it up in USMC colors. They don't fly their twin-seaters off of carrier decks anyway, they don't really need the carrier-specific features other than maybe the landing gear that lets them land with heavier loads)...
-
Re the tail hook, why downgrade it? Easier to let it be as is for commonality, lightening it would not save much weight but would just require unnecessary re-engineering and I've never heard of a pilot who ran into the barrier to have complained that his tail hook was too strong. :P Also, a full-strength landing hook is very useful if making purposefully arrested landings at roadway strips like the Finnish Air Force regularly does with their Hornets (would hazard a guess that the Swiss Air Force still does roadway operations too).
Roadway strips is where the carrier-grade landing gear would come to its own too - bearing in mind that SAAB Viggen was designed for similar operations and as a consequence had its landing gear (and of course the entire structure) stressed for sink rates usually reserved for carrier-borne aircraft only. Then again, if you plan to operate the plane from roadways, then the folding wings become useful too, as the plane will fit into smaller revetments... ;D
-
Some more info including details of the landing gear and tail hook:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-18L%20mockup_zpsgc8zo4hr.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-18L%20Tailhook_zpsatrcttqn.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F18A%20v%20F18L_zpsf5fx8snc.jpg~original)
and just a little whiffery inspiration...
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F18L%20users_zpsqfl9tirh.jpg)
-
The u/c look a bit like F-15 gear
-
Starting to wonder if the really old Italeri F/A-18 wouldn't be a good idea to use for this, because the conformal sparrow fairings are separate parts on that kit. And I think you can slot the LERXes pretty easily as well. The landing gear doors would be harder to do though, the whole thing looks like a scratchbuilder's dream... and my nightmare, because I can barely be trusted with shake-and-bake models....
-
The Airfix 1/72 F-18 kit has big slots in it like that. I'll have to get it out and have a check, but I seem to remember it like that when I built it.
-
I wouldn't focus too much upon the LERX slots. In all likelihood, the F-18L would have gone through similar aerodynamic refinements in this area as the standard Hornets, namely increasing the wing leading-edge radius, variations in the LERX camber, filling in the slots in the LERX-fuselage juncture and adding the LERX Fence.
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F18L%20users_zpsqfl9tirh.jpg)
I love the artist's rendition of the RAAF's 'roos on that painting. :o
-
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F18L%20users_zpsqfl9tirh.jpg[/url])
I love the artist's rendition of the RAAF's 'roos on that painting. :o
From a distance they look like Kiwis.
-
I'm sorry but think it looks like a Parasaurolophus.
(http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Parasaurolophus018.jpg)
The "Maple Leaf" is a dinosaur footprint.
-
I'm sorry but think it looks like a Parasaurolophus.
([url]http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Parasaurolophus018.jpg[/url])
The "Maple Leaf" is a dinosaur footprint.
;D That's an entirely different story...
-
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner033/48087077221_a26a15123a_o_zpsmr6ozaha.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner033/48087113988_1f6be32823_o_zpsjxvudqwh.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner033/48087172612_85031ed8b0_o_zpsmkxnmd2c.jpg)
-
The camo of the RCAF one in the artists rendering is interesting ---
-
I reckon a German one in this sort of scheme in the mid-late '80s would look cool:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Panavia_Tornado_Luftwaffe.jpg)
-
Or the F-104 Marine scheme.
(http://www.916-starfighter.de/916starfighter/pics/camo/n76mff104.jpg)
Heck, schemes from all F-104 users Sale of the Century 2.0. ;D :icon_fsm:
-
Oh yeah! :smiley:
At least one of those F-104 schemes has come to fruition, kind of:
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/7b6/Screen_180702_191048.jpg)
-
If the Israeli one had come off:
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BIAF.jpg)
Some more from Chris:
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARN.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BNavy.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BRAFGulf.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAF6sqn.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BUSAFloviz.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARNZAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BRNZAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18APortSEA.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARNLAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ABrazil.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18Aaeronavale.jpg)
-
And some more Australian ones:
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFNMF75sqn.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFWWII.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFSEA.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BRAAFFACDU.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFRANblue.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAN.jpg)
-
I'm just wondering as to the feasibility of a weight reduction program of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C/D Hornet - a Super Weight Improvement Program (SWIP) as applied to the General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B if you like, could have been applied during manufacturing, so as to give the Marine Nationale a more effective derivative of the Hornet for operation aboard it's Clemenceau-class carrier's?
Does anyone have any idea as to how much weight was saved from the F-111B SWIP (appreciating that I think this might have included the substitution of the F-111's escape capsule for conventional ejection seats, IIRC)
P.S. I've chosen the F/A-18C/D variant because of its higher thrust F404-GE-402 (although this begs the question could the F/A-18A/B be retrofitted/ accommodate the F404-GE-402 with ease??; and was the F/A-18C/D inherently heavier than the F/A-18A/B??
Granted, if it could be done, I'm guessing it wouldn't look any different to the legacy F/A-18A/B/C/D........
MAD
-
And some more Australian ones:
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFNMF75sqn.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFWWII.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFSEA.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18BRAAFFACDU.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAFRANblue.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAAF.jpg)
(https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/cncooper/what%20if/FA-18ARAN.jpg)
Love and miss Coops' amazing talented profiles 😢
MAD
-
I'm just wondering as to the feasibility of a weight reduction program of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C/D Hornet - a Super Weight Improvement Program (SWIP) as applied to the General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B if you like, could have been applied during manufacturing, so as to give the Marine Nationale a more effective derivative of the Hornet for operation aboard it's Clemenceau-class carrier's?
Does anyone have any idea as to how much weight was saved from the F-111B SWIP (appreciating that I think this might have included the substitution of the F-111's escape capsule for conventional ejection seats, IIRC)
P.S. I've chosen the F/A-18C/D variant because of its higher thrust F404-GE-402 (although this begs the question could the F/A-18A/B be retrofitted/ accommodate the F404-GE-402 with ease??; and was the F/A-18C/D inherently heavier than the F/A-18A/B??
Granted, if it could be done, I'm guessing it wouldn't look any different to the legacy F/A-18A/B/C/D........
I believe the engines are interchangeable in the airframe (same envelope and mounting points) and I'm not certain how the weight difference is between them. However, I do understand that F/A-18A/B aircraft outfitted with lighter systems from the C/D aircraft and the higher rated engines are known as A+/B+ aircraft and are of reportedly better performance than either of their equivalents.
-
What is it with BotoPhucket & this self-promotional crap they're splashing all over their customers' photo's? >:D :icon_punal:
You can't call it a "water mark" because it isn't subtly in the background, it obliterates a quarter of the image! :o
-
What is it with BotoPhucket & this self-promotional crap they're splashing all over their customers' photo's? >:D :icon_punal:
You can't call it a "water mark" because it isn't subtly in the background, it obliterates a quarter of the image! :o
It’s really annoying and I’m sure they want you to pay money to get it removed. Not a good way to please customers!
-
Here you go:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAAFNMF75sqn_zpsxtjelk6x.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAAFWWII_zps4v4zgely.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAAFSEA_zpsomxhe8dq.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18BRAAFFACDU_zpsw1f4lpyl.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAAFRANblue_zpswbtne5xy.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAAF_zpsmmkznzkp.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner046/FA-18ARAN_zpswbmoqolu.jpg)
-
Does anyone have any idea as to how much weight was saved from the F-111B SWIP
I understand SWIP saved about 3000lbs but as you said, the Navy wasn't exactly helping and indeed in July 1964, they directed an additional 2,850lbs of weight gains to make the aircraft compatible with carrier operations thus largely negating SWIP savings.
I've chosen the F/A-18C/D variant because of its higher thrust F404-GE-402 (although this begs the question could the F/A-18A/B be retrofitted/ accommodate the F404-GE-402 with ease??; and was the F/A-18C/D inherently heavier than the F/A-18A/B??
Theoretically the earlier F/A-18A/Bs could be retrofitted with -402s instead of their -400s. That said, the engines do have different parts and thus it becomes a logisitics/supportability cost type question. Specifically, is the additional performance worth the additional cost including the potential writing off of spares? Most, if not all F/A-18A/B operators have decided that is isn't and thus programs such as the Australian Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG) have focussed more on replacing sensors, additional weapons and fatigue issues.
Re the Marine Nationale, Ihoestly think the only thing that would have really resulted in the acquiring or leasing /A-18s would have been a massive delay or cancellation outright of the Rafale.
-
Thank you for your replies elmayerle and GTX, both interesting and informative!
Still would have been interesting to have seen a carrierised derivative of the Northrop YF-17, that stuck more in line with the size and weight of the YF-17, as Congress had stipulated and intended, before the USN enshrined it's wet dream upon the design.
Don't get me wrong, the F/A-18 is a good piece of kit, but the fact that the USN was given an inch, and it delibratly took a mile and a half...... 😉
MAD
-
A carrier-ized version of the production F-17 proposal would likely have had very similar landing gear to the F-18's (still have the loads of coming aboard the boat), though it probably would have retained the slotted LERX of the prototype F-18's (while working at Northrop, I was given to understand that those slots allowed counterbalancing vortices to balance the effect of the ones off the edges of the LERX on the vertical tails. When those got filled in (apparently the equipment fit required more volume), they ended up having to add the fences on the LERX. Beyond that the profile views, other than the radome would be similar, but the difference would show up on the plan view with the F-17 variant having a much narrower spine.
-
As previously shown, the YF-17 to F/A-18 evolution essentially introduced those elements necessary to make the platform both carrier capable and operationally viable:
(http://YF-17 to F/A-18:
[img width=1200 height=600]https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner034/main-qimg-bdcfea163303c726ab024eeb4fe70a1d-c_zps4kfk4gmm.jpeg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner034/main-qimg-b22abcd11596e18de810cdbfd334207e-c_zps5txmecaz.jpeg)[/img]
That said, perhaps some things could be looked at such as limiting the overall role and thus need for some equipment. For instance, if the new F-18 lost the (A)ttack role and went purely for the air defence role it might get way with some weight. That said, having a single role platform on a carrier would seem a waste unless it was purely air defence of the ship Though I suppose one could argue that that's essentially what the Aéronavale's F-8E(FN)s and dare I say, the RAN FAA's A-4Gs were used for so perhaps...
Maybe also some adjustments to some of the equipment such as the slightly smaller AN/APG-66 radar from the F-16 or even the AN/APG-67 from the F-20?
Another option might be to add in some features such as blown flaps or similar so as to ease the landing burden.
-
P-530 cutaway - this was the immediate predecessor to the YF-17:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner048/60-1_zpsbplle8x2.jpg)
-
I'll admit, I'm tempted to model the F-18L and keep the slotted LERXs while simplifying the landing gear (thinking an even swap between a F/A-18 prototype kit and a F-15 which would go on to be navalized).
-
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 undercarriage design was due to the requirement that Sparrows could be loaded while the wings were folded, i.e. on the fuselage, resulting in the need for a complex retraction process to clear the Sparrows fins. Theoretically a simpler, but still strengthened gear design could be used if the Sparrows were deleted or moved to the wings.
-
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 undercarriage design was due to the requirement that Sparrows could be loaded while the wings were folded, i.e. on the fuselage, resulting in the need for a complex retraction process to clear the Sparrows fins. Theoretically a simpler, but still strengthened gear design could be used if the Sparrows were deleted or moved to the wings.
This is the only reference I have been able to find to that at this stage: https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/ (https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/)
-
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 undercarriage design was due to the requirement that Sparrows could be loaded while the wings were folded, i.e. on the fuselage, resulting in the need for a complex retraction process to clear the Sparrows fins. Theoretically a simpler, but still strengthened gear design could be used if the Sparrows were deleted or moved to the wings.
This is the only reference I have been able to find to that at this stage: https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/ (https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/)
That report would also explain what I've noticed on my North American FJ-2 and 3 models, the main gear were moved backwards and outwards ---
-
Ilmavoimat Super Hornet and Growler anyone?
(https://corporalfrisk.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/screenshot_2019-11-23-lhuhrcqi-jpeg-image-800-c397-800-pixels.png)
-
Ilmavoimat Super Hornet and Growler anyone?
That is one "might yet be".
So is SAAB Gripen and GlobalEye.
-
Ilmavoimat Super Hornet and Growler anyone?
That is one "might yet be".
So is SAAB Gripen and GlobalEye.
Greg, those conformal tanks they have, they look a lot like the ones off an F-16. Would you know if that actually has been tried ?
-
I believe the conformal fuel tanks have been trialled but that no operator has actually ordered/used them yet.
(https://newsassets.cirium.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?itemid=54405)
Some info here: https://aviationweek.com/awin/upgrade-fa-18-fuel-tank-gains-ground
-
Apparently FY19-FY23 budgets allow for 110 USN Super Hornet conversions to Block III SLM standards which include conformal tanks.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/ (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/)
-
Does anybody have a comparison drawing showing the major differences between the proposed F-18L versus the built F/A-18A? Such as where the undercarriage was intended to go, etc.?
-
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 undercarriage design was due to the requirement that Sparrows could be loaded while the wings were folded, i.e. on the fuselage, resulting in the need for a complex retraction process to clear the Sparrows fins. Theoretically a simpler, but still strengthened gear design could be used if the Sparrows were deleted or moved to the wings.
This is the only reference I have been able to find to that at this stage: https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/ (https://www.facebook.com/avgeekery/posts/the-hornets-main-landing-gear-is-one-of-the-most-complex-used-by-a-fighter-jet-a/1497778590309126/)
Nice find GTX and very interesting!👍
M.A.D
-
I believe the conformal fuel tanks have been trialled but that no operator has actually ordered/used them yet.
(https://newsassets.cirium.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?itemid=54405)
Some info here: https://aviationweek.com/awin/upgrade-fa-18-fuel-tank-gains-ground
I would have to say it's not your typical conformal tank, the position of it would mean the shape would have to work as part of the wing aerodynamics right ?
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/b27/RNZAF%20FA-18C%20-%20Winter%2000.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ca2/fa-18%20saf%201.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/8ab/fa-18%20saf%202.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/91f/image_04.jpg)
-
Germany's Air Force Is Going All in On the F/A-18 Super Hornet and more Eurofighters. Here's why. By Charlie Gao, 20200328 (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-going-all-fa-18-super-hornet-138332)
Is this old news or something new?
I found several other articles on this but the sources were a bit dodgy. This link appears to be a bit more legit.
-
Found this morning:
This Man Owns The World's Most Advanced Private Air Force After Buying 46 F/A-18 Hornets
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets?fbclid=IwAR3Ps8mVidcFWYvvVt_8JNS9ERlGQjgrl8F-HUHV8Uir69IjMcZuFZ-6oaM (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets?fbclid=IwAR3Ps8mVidcFWYvvVt_8JNS9ERlGQjgrl8F-HUHV8Uir69IjMcZuFZ-6oaM)
-
Found this morning:
This Man Owns The World's Most Advanced Private Air Force After Buying 46 F/A-18 Hornets
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets?fbclid=IwAR3Ps8mVidcFWYvvVt_8JNS9ERlGQjgrl8F-HUHV8Uir69IjMcZuFZ-6oaM (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets?fbclid=IwAR3Ps8mVidcFWYvvVt_8JNS9ERlGQjgrl8F-HUHV8Uir69IjMcZuFZ-6oaM)
Was reported on a little while ago. I have actually been aware of the pending sales since last year but was not at liberty to tell. There are some other ongoing aspects which have not made it to the media yet also but... :icon_swat:
-
Germany's Air Force Is Going All in On the F/A-18 Super Hornet and more Eurofighters. Here's why. By Charlie Gao, 20200328 (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-going-all-fa-18-super-hornet-138332)
Is this old news or something new?
I found several other articles on this but the sources were a bit dodgy. This link appears to be a bit more legit.
It has been reported but as far as I know there has been no official sale. For something such as this it will be formally announced that permission is granted via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. There is nothing there yet re Germany and the Super Hornet though that doesn't mean something isn't in the works.
For some interesting whiffs though here are two that are there:
- Government of Canada – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft with Support (https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-canada-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft-support): WASHINGTON, Sep. 12, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8 ) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft...
- Brazil – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft (https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/brazil-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft): WASHINGTON, August 6, 2009 – Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines...
Personally, I feel that Germany is stupid not to select the F-35 but I also understand that domestic issues would be heavily influencing this...
-
And here's a profile Logan did for above:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OrBUuE_u2jY/UMZdqcwCHuI/AAAAAAAADcM/LCKw9uVwrv8/s1600/OAF%2BBRAZIL%2BSUPERHORNET.png)
-
Once upon a time there was talk of a French F/A-18C buy:
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/318/Screen_190114_095025.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/a56/Screen_190114_095319.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/5de/Screen_190114_093037.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/739/Screen_190114_093045.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/689/Screen_190306_171435.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/9f1/Screen_190306_172428.png)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/b84/HORNET%20BOX%202.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/124/223750_20190531155152_1.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/678/pic%201.PNG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/5db/pic%202.PNG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/7ef/pic%205.PNG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/349/pic%203.PNG)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/8f9/pic%201.PNG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/7b3/pic%202.PNG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/12a/MFG_Formation.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/90a/MFG1%2036+01%201.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/c69/MFG2%2036+08%201.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/39e/MFG2%2036+08%202.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/57a/MFG2%2036+25%201.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/d7d/MFG2%2036+25%202.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/08d/Screen_180926_173910.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/cf6/Screen_180926_173926.jpg)
-
Germany's Air Force Is Going All in On the F/A-18 Super Hornet and more Eurofighters. Here's why. By Charlie Gao, 20200328 (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-going-all-fa-18-super-hornet-138332)<...>
<...>
Personally, I feel that Germany is stupid not to select the F-35 but I also understand that domestic issues would be heavily influencing this...
Same.
To me, the split Eurofighter/Super Hornet buy is anything but the surprise decision the article makes it out to be. It really was the only way to keep everybody onside. Getting F-35s (which the Luftwaffe apparently would have preferred) would have upset the French (with whom we're planning to build a sixth-gen fighter in the future) and Airbus. Getting Eurofighters and/or Rafales (don't know whether the Rafale was actually considered) would have upset the Americans. It also would have made integration of US nuclear bombs either very expensive (Eurofighter) or maybe even impossible (Rafale). Getting just Super Hornets would have upset Airbus.
The Luftwaffe will get their new aircraft and like them.
The split Eurofighter/Super Hornet buy is the only way nobody's getting hurt. Maybe not just figuratively speaking, but quite literally. Getting the "soft" electronic attack Growler means Germany can continue to supply recce aircraft and "electronic warfare" instead of dropping actual bombs. We can still claim we're doing our part while leaving the dirty deeds to, um, everybody else. :-X
-
Going back to the late-70's/early-80's, Swedish F/A-18A/B in three-tone green splinter camouflage as JAS-38?
Or, today, if the neighborhood gets rougher (a more aggressive Russia, say), Swedish Super Hornets as something of a Hi/Lo mix with the JAS-39?
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e79/lhisVbE-j.jpg)
-
I believe there was talk of an Israeli F/A-18 buy in the 90s, not sure if it was C/D of E/F being considered. Similar time frame South Korea srelected the Hornet over additional F-16 but later reversed the decision following sticker shock over the Hornet.
-
I believe there was talk of an Israeli F/A-18 buy in the 90s, not sure if it was C/D of E/F being considered. Similar time frame South Korea srelected the Hornet over additional F-16 but later reversed the decision following sticker shock over the Hornet.
I seem to recall that Israel did consider the Super Hornet about 15yrs ago but I am not sure how serious that looking was.
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/983/Screen_190402_220842.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/601/Screen_190402_220923.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/c8e/Screen_190402_220749.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/eb7/Screen_190402_220911.jpg)
-
Once upon a time there was talk of a French F/A-18C buy:
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/5de/Screen_190114_093037.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/739/Screen_190114_093045.png)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/689/Screen_190306_171435.png)
(https://media.tenor.com/images/f4c8059e75d21aa301174d4374ec4680/tenor.gif)
I have to do it :-* :-*
Paint is on the way, kit is out of the stash, decals available from a Kinetic Super Etendard and I found a pair of Magic II and another one of Super 530D. Let's go for this, in parallel with the "Garuda One" F-15E :P
Thanks Greg 8)
-
Interesting tidbit in a Govt file on the HMAS Melbourne replacement options post the inability to get HMS Invincible. Note the comment re F/A-18s.
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner143/4E7E5879-9CCA-4BBD-BD9B-DB910D2F4389_zpsm4udbwlj.jpeg)
Hmmm...RAN FAA F/A-18 as a subtle whiff to confuse people.
-
Only if l could remember whether l really did read that it would take 700 million dollars to qualify the EFA for nukes. F-18 is a contender merely by being present and yes, with the reported Chinese bomber Americans will now start testing nukes for the F-35 to be ready by 2040?
-
Interesting tidbit in a Govt file on the HMAS Melbourne replacement options post the inability to get HMS Invincible. Note the comment re F/A-18s.
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner143/4E7E5879-9CCA-4BBD-BD9B-DB910D2F4389_zpsm4udbwlj.jpeg)
Hmmm...RAN FAA F/A-18 as a subtle whiff to confuse people.
Did you see the suggestion about a conventionally powered CDG or a modified CTOL LHA / LHD?
-
Did you see the suggestion about a conventionally powered CDG or a modified CTOL LHA / LHD?
Yes, though I was only focused on the statement about the carrier being capable of taking the F/A-18s.
-
Did you see the suggestion about a conventionally powered CDG or a modified CTOL LHA / LHD?
Yes, though I was only focused on the statement about the carrier being capable of taking the F/A-18s.
There was an article I read years ago by a couple of RAAF officers suggesting a coal slurry fired GT powered bare bones aircraft carrier able to operate RAAF F/A-18s
-
When Australia set up their production line for F/A-18s in the mid 1980s it was hoped that Singapore and New Zealand would purchase Australian-built Hornets. There is some whiffing ideas there...maybe even add in a RMAF Single Seat Hornet.
-
Now that's interesting. :icon_surprised:
"F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy"
LINK (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35864/f-a-18-super-hornet-is-now-undergoing-ski-jump-launch-trials-for-the-indian-navy) to article.
Article also yields an interesting picture of an F/A-18 "Legacy" Hornet undergoing ski-jump trials in the late 1980s.
(https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1597871929236-hornet-jump.jpg?quality=60)
-
Now that's interesting. :icon_surprised:
"F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy"
LINK (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35864/f-a-18-super-hornet-is-now-undergoing-ski-jump-launch-trials-for-the-indian-navy) to article.
Article also yields an interesting picture of an F/A-18 "Legacy" Hornet undergoing ski-jump trials in the late 1980s.
(https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1597871929236-hornet-jump.jpg?quality=60)
I know this picture well ChernayaAkula and was always fascinated as to the reason for its trial (as in who was the potential customer that may have wanted a ski-jump capable Hornet, let alone who was intending to build a STOBAR carrier of the period? Or was it the USMC that might have been toying with the notion of land-based ski-jump assisted take off???)
I'm also wondering if the trial extended to greater angles of the ski-jump, as it appears to be quite a shallow angle (I think from memory the given ski-jump is 6% or 9%)
Ah, yes, with a quick check on the net, I found this:
When a ski-jump with a 9 degree exit angle is used, the takeoff roll of an F/A-18 Hornet can be cut in half
I'm guessing the USN must have flirted with the notion of ski-jump operations at some time, for the even trialed the Grumman F-14 Tomcat take off's......
MAD
-
Ok, probably already known and appreciated by many, but the Tomcat ski-jump trials were actually conducted in 1982 because:
.... the F-14 flew 28 times from a ski-jump but never achieved maximum take-off capability because of single-engine operating concerns.
Dam, and here I was hoping the USN were seriously looking at alternative carrier ideas....😯😉
MAD
-
I did read that The Shah wanted to pick up the development costs of the F-18L, but was blocked by the Carter government.
(Saw it on social media - but was attributed to New York Times).
-
I didn't realise Ilmavoimat F/A-18s had the same (or similar) spotlight as RCAF CF-188s:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/las-jpg.594434/)
-
I didn't realise Ilmavoimat F/A-18s had the same (or similar) spotlight as RCAF CF-188s:
I can't find my notes right now but, years back when Canada was reducing its CF-18 fleet to 65, Finland bought some airframes for spares. Some of those spares have been incorporated into Ilmavoimat Hornets. The best-known example was the 'Franken-Hornet' HN-468 - a two-seater rebuilt by Patria out of a Canadian single-seat forward fuselage. (I say 'was' because HN-468 crashed in 2010.)
-
The spotlight was ordered for Finnish Hornets from the beginning. Swiss Hornets have it too.
-
The spotlight was ordered for Finnish Hornets from the beginning. Swiss Hornets have it too.
And something new is learned! Cheers perttime :smiley:
-
Swiss Hornets have it too.
You're right - odd that I have never noticed that before. Nor has it been something widely reported I suspect.
(https://www.planephotos.net/photos/3920_McDonnell-Douglas-F-A-18C-Hornet_J-5026.jpg)
-
Interestingly the Germans have decided to retire their Tornados and instead by F-18E and Gs.
-
Last I heard Germany couldn’t get half a squadron of Tornadoes up and running at the same time anyway.
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z7q1-c0de352f-8e2d-40fd-8eda-66976f63429c.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_jasdf_by_schwann90_d81z7q1-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvY2NiMzRlNzAtMWU0Zi00ZmYwLWFiOTItNDIzNTAyYWYyN2QwXC9kODF6N3ExLWMwZGUzNTJmLThlMmQtNDBmZC04ZWRhLTY2OTc2ZjYzNDI5Yy5wbmciLCJoZWlnaHQiOiI8PTgwMCIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLndhdGVybWFyayJdLCJ3bWsiOnsicGF0aCI6Ilwvd21cL2NjYjM0ZTcwLTFlNGYtNGZmMC1hYjkyLTQyMzUwMmFmMjdkMFwvc2Nod2FubjkwLTQucG5nIiwib3BhY2l0eSI6OTUsInByb3BvcnRpb25zIjowLjQ1LCJncmF2aXR5IjoiY2VudGVyIn19.9qhlPPzqbFC0XrSFhdB7H_HuKuFrRJnKMjG22tQuAfs)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z74k-3eecc1f7-d990-4fa3-a6d6-b1433cc1dc0b.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_fab_by_schwann90_d81z74k-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo3NGstM2VlY2MxZjctZDk5MC00ZmEzLWE2ZDYtYjE0MzNjYzFkYzBiLnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.0P6cuWXGKoXdEse3Y7yAy4r7OM-WDFd7wnAEMtx4LgU)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z6ei-571da7d9-58c8-4700-8a5b-1b0f72c8d7e7.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_suomi_ilmavoimat_by_schwann90_d81z6ei-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo2ZWktNTcxZGE3ZDktNThjOC00NzAwLThhNWItMWIwZjcyYzhkN2U3LnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.q2UNcikCNFzmGooP4EB7gYBVMVK-j1d5dytHX38Bdsg)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z5r0-46d860fa-276a-460e-b996-c33881627427.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_schweizer_luftwaffe_by_schwann90_d81z5r0-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo1cjAtNDZkODYwZmEtMjc2YS00NjBlLWI5OTYtYzMzODgxNjI3NDI3LnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.Kc65a4U03Dx1lWHbFUWCpT5F5WX9uqmdJax7W2MYA7g)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z5g6-6e54eb5b-8c19-469b-9578-a18e3f249aa3.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_royal_new_zealand_air_force_by_schwann90_d81z5g6-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo1ZzYtNmU1NGViNWItOGMxOS00NjliLTk1NzgtYTE4ZTNmMjQ5YWEzLnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.fuFCuoFZqr0xp_IQrCbKh3X0R0SBn4zbPsfarsYriqA)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z555-0a22367c-9cf3-49d1-8566-9d73fedf2bdf.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_royal_canadian_air_force_by_schwann90_d81z555-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo1NTUtMGEyMjM2N2MtOWNmMy00OWQxLTg1NjYtOWQ3M2ZlZGYyYmRmLnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.qXdCy_CFjGx32fwawiR74RSI3uNrpPRMMW5JwzA97gs)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z4kt-093c816a-65b2-461c-95aa-28e8d87e633d.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_royal_navy_by_schwann90_d81z4kt-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvY2NiMzRlNzAtMWU0Zi00ZmYwLWFiOTItNDIzNTAyYWYyN2QwXC9kODF6NGt0LTA5M2M4MTZhLTY1YjItNDYxYy05NWFhLTI4ZThkODdlNjMzZC5wbmciLCJoZWlnaHQiOiI8PTgwMCIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLndhdGVybWFyayJdLCJ3bWsiOnsicGF0aCI6Ilwvd21cL2NjYjM0ZTcwLTFlNGYtNGZmMC1hYjkyLTQyMzUwMmFmMjdkMFwvc2Nod2FubjkwLTQucG5nIiwib3BhY2l0eSI6OTUsInByb3BvcnRpb25zIjowLjQ1LCJncmF2aXR5IjoiY2VudGVyIn19.97SeNE8Hec9AGMTgI__VmFYD5N4KXDaPOU8LKkMPPlk)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ccb34e70-1e4f-4ff0-ab92-423502af27d0/d81z4ec-885ec5d9-6c3a-4692-adb9-aa6ebf8b7359.png/v1/fill/w_1600,h_800,q_80,strp/f_a_18f_marine_nationale_by_schwann90_d81z4ec-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD04MDAiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC9jY2IzNGU3MC0xZTRmLTRmZjAtYWI5Mi00MjM1MDJhZjI3ZDBcL2Q4MXo0ZWMtODg1ZWM1ZDktNmMzYS00NjkyLWFkYjktYWE2ZWJmOGI3MzU5LnBuZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xNjAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.b7L8cgMelxV1N2QjC4WeaZVoCfQ80baXiwrYgiR2qYg)
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%25202011/BAFF-18NHORNET01_zpscf58451e.jpg&key=2dfc0632518870c907fd1eca07fb01bd60a0ab7e19038b76d71da3946c46c5eb)
-
A while ago I came across the attached thumbnail.
I was unable to follow up for any concrete into, but I seem to recall a description calling it a post-NACF Northrop project (I could be wrong).
Could someone please identify this one? Thanks in advance.
-
Do you have a bigger version?
-
Do you have a bigger version?
Unfortunately no. *Banging Head*
Actually, check that, I finally found one (https://www.facebook.com/military.flak/photos/a.165146217007454/659363737585697/) after going through my browser history.
This configuration is said to be under the designation N386-21, as a low-end companion to the Advanced Tactical Fighter.
Though I am surprised that they'd consider a .50 cal. for the gun (a notional twin-barrel model, but still).
And it kinda looks like a certain unrelated in-service fighter from the side......
-
Advanced Low Cost Fighter, it says.
There were many ideas floated in between F-5 and YF-17. I don't recall seeing this one before ^
edit:
A response on secretprojects says:
"1988 study for a low cost fighter. See Flying Wings and Radical Things by Tony Chong"
-
Hey GTX - notice anything wrong with the RNZAF image?
The Kiwi is facing the wrong way (as is the Kangaroo on the Hornet in the AWM Development Project video). :o
-
Not my image so I deflect blame...
-
... check that, I finally found one (https://www.facebook.com/military.flak/photos/a.165146217007454/659363737585697/) ...
A rough translation of the Farcebook link would be something like this:
Some people assume that Taiwan's IDF [Indigenous Defense Fighter] was designed with the assistance of Northrop. This rumour has survived, turning into a common error. In my youth, the outside world knew that Taiwan was designing a fighter but was unsure of how to go about it. Because the Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation was authorized by Northrop to produce the F-5E, the media speculated that Northrop had assisted with the design of the IDF.
In fact, the book "Taihai Xiangying - IDF R&D Story" by Yang Baozhi states that the IDF was designed by General Dynamics in order to combat the market potential of the Northrop F-20 [which was refused to Taiwan]. This is the official history.
But reality is always stranger than fiction. When the ATF project (leading to the F-22) was underway, the US Air Force considered developing a Light-Weight Fighter [LWF] to match it. One study for ATF was the Northrop N360 concept with twin-engines and vectoring nozzles in place of a horizontal tail. Later, Northrop modified the N360 design into the single-engined N386 concept. But, in later iterations, Northrop reverted to twin engines - adopting two lower-powered TFE1088 engines. Since the TFE1088s lacked vectoring nozzles, the N386-21 had to be fitted with a conventional horizontal tail. This configuration - with two AIM-120 missiles on recessed belly mounts - was designated N386-21. Also known as the Advanced Low-Cost Fighter, the N386-21 did not attract a US Air Force order, ending further development.
It'd be nice to know more about that 1988 Advanced Low-Cost Fighter study. By the late '80s, most Northrop 'N' numbers are classified. Both the N-360 and N-386 are new to me.
-
Hey, does anybody have drawnings for the P-610? interested in profiling it.
Yes, just thought the same thing after re reading this topic.....
Hope this gives you food for thought!
MAD
-
Hey, does anybody have drawnings for the P-610? interested in profiling it.
I found two 3-views of the P-610 over on Secret Projects. Like all such concepts, the P-610 was a series of designs ... not one fixed layout.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-p-530-p-600-p-610-yf-17-design-evolution.448/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-p-530-p-600-p-610-yf-17-design-evolution.448/)
My personal fav is the wildly impractical looking single-intake P-610 :D
-
With talks that the Tunisian Air Force might be interested in the Kuwaiti F/A-18s, I wonder if we might see a Hornet in this sort of scheme soon:
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Tunisian-Air-Force-F-5s.jpg)(https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2006/10/18/1206.jpg)
-
This shot makes the intakes almost look like they are a kit bash whiff add-on:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kFDr7sqktZU/YT-Gv0TbhkI/AAAAAAADXEo/shAiBb3IMFIxu09aypAWr9078XxHqmA7ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/FA-18F%2BSuper%2BHornet%2B85813%2B%25281%2529.jpg)
-
Yes. An ancestor of Macross?
-
Conbination of bits from F-15E and F-18F to produce another elegant design (IMHO)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CoolFB_USA.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/7f26249f-dff5-44c3-ba08-a307afcd87ae)
-
Sweet! :-*
Has a bit of a MiG-29 vibe to it. Like one of these "artist's impressions" of Soviet prototypes you saw in books when all they had was a top view from a satellite.
-
Swedish Hornet
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SwedHornet(1).jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)[/URL (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/502b0c4b-e149-44f0-9641-89f22f620f3e)
-
Back from Real World to Whiffverse:
(https://cdn.flightsim.to/images/21/f-a-18e-german-air-force-wing-51-immelman-VmKzH.jpg?width=1400&auto_optimize=medium)
-
So I started an F-18L project and got wondering about the actual designation … was it F-18L or FA-18L? And would that lead to F-18LA, LB, etc? Or maybe change completely as in F-18LA to F-19A, LB to F-19B etc to avoid confusion between F-18A and F-18LA, etc.
-
Unusually, a Finnish Hornet had some extra graphics at the NATO Days in Ostrava & Czech Air Force Days, last weekend. The Finnish Air Force posted some photos:
(https://scontent.fqlf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/307084346_225318636487623_6409693807990459045_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=nRCw3l0XkwAAX_WVQvA&_nc_ht=scontent.fqlf1-2.fna&oh=00_AT95hVpmQRobrzc_NxwzFJANbt-sX14KczOp9jzhXv_vpg&oe=632E1E18)
(https://scontent.fqlf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/306994260_226170643069089_3436348744369388215_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=zJiYoK8IJQMAX_RKCY5&_nc_ht=scontent.fqlf1-2.fna&oh=00_AT88GX-Ex_tZBP_pEwcvBCn1o0ABqI3YhlvByNEMUnVE-A&oe=632F2A32)
More (and when the tokens expire):
https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/posts/pfbid0WZqRC864h2sG6BgWeRyqaRLvE8Rt68HZJZTueiWiGzJQvCSg4J5pAFHFeqeTQE8kl (https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/posts/pfbid0WZqRC864h2sG6BgWeRyqaRLvE8Rt68HZJZTueiWiGzJQvCSg4J5pAFHFeqeTQE8kl)
https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/posts/pfbid0vZVxGig8uKrxKvnzpsGkL7oiykgoMmcadNsW1AXUCYwBw8oMYRgu8YfoeYrvhePjl (https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/posts/pfbid0vZVxGig8uKrxKvnzpsGkL7oiykgoMmcadNsW1AXUCYwBw8oMYRgu8YfoeYrvhePjl)
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/HornetViggen(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/HornetViggen(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
-
Is it official this denomination: F/A-18H?
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-18H_6v_1250.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-18H_6v_1250.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
-
Nope. There is also no way a pair of F119s would fit in the space usually taken by a pair of F414s.
-
F/A-18H StrikeEagle's cockpit and engines
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/UltraHornet.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/UltraHornet.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
-
Before Eurofighter project, the Spanish government was not happy with the "captive client" policy practiced by Marcel Dassault; they was also not happy with the prior authorization by the US government to be able to use weapons of US origin. So... what if they brazenly decided to reverse engineer the Mirage F1, F-18 and the J79 engine to produce an indigenous fighter?
Here you see the Casa-AFX. :smiley:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Casa-AXF.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Casa-AXF.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
-
Super Hornet Rafale
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/RafaleHornet_1GiP57esLNv8Zw2oienE6A.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/RafaleHornet_1GiP57esLNv8Zw2oienE6A.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)