I would like to remind everyone on the rules of classified documents;
1 Like
Spoiler
The Distribution Statement A document is still not enough?
Spoiler
Or the book was problematic?
Both of those Dist-A documents are okay, I believe the first diagram you posted it from the “F/A-18C NATOPS” which isn’t okay. (if its not from the NATOPS though thats okay I can unhide the post)
Spoiler
Yes, it was extracted from the page 52 of WarbirdTech Series Volume 31: Boeing F/A-18 Hornet.
Magic, thank you. I’ll unhide the post.
5 Likes
From NSIAD 96-98 page 30:
Performance of F/A-18C with 60% internal fuel, two AIM-9 and two AIM-120 missiles:
Sustained turn rate, per second:
- @ Sea level: 19.2°
- @ 15,000 ft (4.5 km): 12.3°
Instantaneous bleed rate in a turn, per second:
- @ Sea level: 54 kn (100 km/h)
- @ 15,000 ft (4.5 km): 62 kn (115 km/h)
Acceleration time, from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 (1.08 in case of 5,000 ft):
- @ 5,000 ft: 21 seconds
- @ 20,000 ft (6 km): 34.6 seconds
- @ 35,000 ft (10 km): 55.8 seconds
This document also provides some E-M diagram of F/A-18C and F/A-18E. In this chart, the maximum instantaneous turn rate of F/A-18C is about 16°/s in Mach 0.65, and maximum sustained turn rate is about 10 °/s in Mach 0.7~0.85.
However we have to consider this is the comparison for 550 nm fighter escort mission profile. The F/A-18E with more internal fuel may only rely to single external tank, but F/A-18C needs three tanks for such mission. And the 60% initial fuel means that the F/A-18C is in almost full internal fuel, which is definitely not an optimum status for showing maximum maneuverability. Additional drag from retained external tanks are bonus.
1 Like
While it is subject for more research recently it’s been found that in 2018 Japan tested the EA-18G Growler
Wait, are you getting maps with carriers? I haven’t had a single map with a carrier show up for jets since the F-4J came in. Since then, literally NEVER a carrier
I think this photo was doctored by photoshop or other means.
1 Like
I play air Sim. Whilst the choice can be limited, you can pick which map you want to play and several have carriers for both teams. This allows for both take offs and landings.
Quick caviat though. Carriers are also destroyable and often targetted, especially as they have recently disabled the carrier AA. Once a carrier has been sunk. It can respawn, but you cant repair or rearm on it and can always be sunk again
1 Like
They may be Swiss by name but they’re British designed and built, a lot of them were just ex-RAF jets.
Anyway I like the subtree idea, would allow for more nations to be in the game in a way that makes sense! +1
That sounds exactly like the F-16A Netz, they were all US made and a lot of them we’re ex US service aircraft but you don’t see anyone saying the USA should get them, the fact is there is no good reason that the Swiss Hunter should have gone to the British.
Or at least gotten a carbon copy. The RAF also operated an almost an identical version of the Swiss Hunter for many years as their primary ground attacker. We need an RAF version of the Hunter FGA9 which had the same CMs and other capabilities of the Swiss Hunter. But they decided to add the Rhodesian FGA9 which was used as a fighter.
RAF FGA.9s never had countermeasures or guided weapons (air to air or air to ground).
Or whichever version did have that
Maybe Singapore or India ?
If images on internet are correct
Then Singapore FGA74S variant was able to equip 4 Sidewinders which is great however the issue with this variant is that it may not have any countermeasures
Oman’s Hunter Mk.73 were upgraded by Singapore and included AN/ALE-40 dispensers as well as the additional inboard AIM-9(P) pylons found on Singapore’s own Mk.74S
Not seen images of them with the same 4x sidewinder loadout but it seems likely they could. Would need to investigate if they also had the same fuselage racks for bombs that Singapore’s Mk.74S had.
However, two Ex-Swiss Mk.58s also operated in the UK as adversarial aircraft owned by Hawker Hunter Aviation Ltd with pilots from Cobham/FR Aviation. In spite of being civilian owned they were/are on the Military Aircraft Register and have UK military serials and roundels (ZZ190 and ZZ191). So there’s really no reason the Mk.58 wasn’t appropriate for the British tree in the first place.
4 Likes
I don’t care much for reading an entire thread about the Hawker Hunter when the title states “F/A-18”.
1 Like
Gotcha. Yeah, I main ARB and I haven’t seen a carrier in over a year in normal battles…