What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: Radish on January 20, 2004, 01:04:14 pm

Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Radish on January 20, 2004, 01:04:14 pm
The F-18 for the Royal Navy?
Have there ever been plans? Suggestions? Studies?? Proposals???
What sort?/
F-18C/D??
F-18E/F??
Any background???
Any help with the story???
 :cheers:
I'm thinking of a model, hopefully with a "sliver" of truth, ready for the Yeovilton Show on February 14th, 1/48th scale!!
 :dum:  :dum:  :dum:  :dum:  :dum:  :dum:  :dum:  
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: elmayerle on January 20, 2004, 01:12:22 pm
I don't know of anything specific, but how about variants of the A/B or C/D with RB.199's in place of F404's?  I do know that there were studies of production F-17 variants with RB.199's.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Scooterman on January 20, 2004, 02:17:40 pm
Wasn't the Superbug mentioned for the new big RN carrier study?
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Matt Wiser on January 20, 2004, 02:28:06 pm
If I recall correctly, McAir did succeed in getting the French Navy to order the Hornet C/B in 1988-but they ran into Dassault and government opposition(Some say that's one and the same): they had to wait until 2002 to retire the F-8s; it could have been done as early as 1992, and the Super Etendard squadrons would have converted to the Bug after the F-8 outfits. F/A-18 on the CVF (if it was a CTOL carrier) would have been E/F, and consider the EF-18G Growler that's under development as an EA-6B replacement.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Chris707 on January 20, 2004, 04:04:20 pm
Forgive me another bit of cross-posting :-)

(http://www.dataviewbooks.com/rnhornet.jpg)

Say the RN actually commisioned and then later rebuilt some/all of the WWII-designed Malta class carriers (comparable to the Midway class), and/or built some of carrier designs proposed in the 1950s, and/or built CVA.01 in the 1960s, and/or kept Eagle and Ark Royal going longer. Go further and say that they bought the Phantom to operate from these ships and then needed a replacement late 1970s-ish as the FAA would continue to operate CTOL aircraft for at least another decade...
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Mike Wren on January 21, 2004, 06:47:22 am
there's a RN Hornet FA.1 two seater on my list of 'forthcoming' models, can't remember the backstory off hand but it was something about conventional carrier operations continuing (Phantoms & Buccs in the Falklands etc), with the Hornet replacing the two of them in the AD & strike roles... it'll be low viz grey if it ever gets built, probably with checkerboard rudders.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Nick on January 21, 2004, 10:01:32 am
I'm thinking of the Australian F-18A Hornets and the possibility of Oz flying their (navalized, of course) Hornets from either a refurbished HMAS Melbourne or another replacement carrier in the 80's.

Nick B)  
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Daryl J. on October 15, 2005, 10:45:48 pm
Since the F/A-18 is proving to be Such A Universal Aircraft, what would happen to the airframe if it became, for instance, a USAF (RAF/SAAF/etc/etc/etc) front line aircraft?  :wacko:  :wacko:  :wacko:

Methinks the folding wing would go and the spine would enlarge for greater fuel capacity.    Other visibles? (Besides the obvious USAF spit-polished paint).


US Coast Guard would likely be paint/loadout.


I've cut open a Monogram 1/48 A-18 Strike Fighter with a USAF what-if in mind but nothing's finalized as of yet.     I would like to push some of the standard ''whiff envelope'' with this one thus the absence of wing folds.   It's about 50% rescribed with a light scribe from one of the Missus's Missing Sewing Needles mounted in a pin vise.


Ideas?



Daryl J.

 
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jschmus on October 16, 2005, 01:31:52 am
Well, back in the early 80s, Northrop pitched the F-18L, a land-based derivative of the F/A-18.  It lost the tailhook and heavier landing gear, and picked up additional pylons on the wings.  The mockup was depicted with Sparrows on the wingtip rails.  By the time they started trying to market it, McDonnell Douglas had the F/A-18 in full swing, and the government had loosened its restrictions on F-16 sales, so suddenly their market dried up.  I seem to remember that Northrop tied to sue, but I don't remember how it turned out.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: upnorth on October 16, 2005, 01:48:19 am
I wouldn't enlarge the spine myself, its plenty big as is.

I was playing around with a similar idea a few years back, the model came to nothing, but here's some of what I did:

1: complete removal of the tail hook and its associated fairings.

2: lightened landing gear. I had a 1/72 F/A-18 and a single seat Eurofighter (both Italeri and I bashed the landing gear from the Eurofighter into the Hornet.

That called for a bit more cutting than I expected and the gear wells didn't look so good after so that lead to:

3: closed gear doors to keep debris out, only opening for gear extension and retraction (and hide the hacked up gear bays ;) )

4: removal of fuselage Sparrow missile fairings (always thought they messed up the lines anyway)

5: reduction of wing area (cut leading edge of wing down starting from the front inboard corner of the leading edge slats to the back outboard corner of them) no real reason to do so, but it made the whole wing look faster.

6: removal of wing fold hinges and large flap actuator hinges on wing undersides (decided to make it all internal)

7: rescribed speed brake further up fuselage spine and put braking parachute housing in old speed brake location (thinking SU-27 style here)

8: grafted Eurofighter radome onto Hornet. It gave the Hornet a nice pointier look and a bigger radar housing.

Thats as far as I got with it before it got inexplicably broken (still have no idea what happened :angry: )

Feel free to use any of the ideas yourself.

I would definitely denavalize the landing gear somewhat, if you reduce the weight there, then you'll get more milage from the Hornet's existing fuel capacity.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: anthonyp on October 16, 2005, 07:28:25 am
Heh...  I'm not awake enough to put my thoughts on changes to land based F-18's in order right now, but I did find a page on the web that has a little more detail on the subject of Nev's post.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_9.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_9.html)

As for the current batch of land based F/A-18's I'm working on, I'm just following what Spain, Kuwait, et al, did to their Hornets:  Keep them relateively the same.

EDIT:  Here's a link to an F-18L page.

http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/hornet/hornet.htm (http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/hornet/hornet.htm)
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 16, 2005, 09:11:26 am
I would recommend retaining the existing landing gear which would allow for limited rough field use just in case the thing ever had to land on something other than a hardsurface runway.  The other advantage to the heavier gear is the ability to handle heavier loads.  Take for example the F-15E and the later models of the F-16 which all went to larger wheels for the increased operating weight of the aircraft.  So keep ahead of the game and leave the landing gear as is and remove the catapult lug from the nose gear. 

Putting an additional stores pylon on the wing is always a good thing to allow more stuff to be strapped on and free up the larger pylons to carry more fuel for greater range. 

If you remove the sparrow recess on the fuselage, you will need to find another location for the weapons and that again is why the extra pylons on the wings come in handy. 
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Daryl J. on October 16, 2005, 07:01:39 pm
This is great!

I like the idea of keeping the LG the same for rough(er)-field capability.

Another idea I'd had was under the premis that the US Army would take over mud moving; consequently many F/A-18's would fall under their direct command.   Being medium-to-low altitude missions, the paint schemes would still be in the greys but much more along the line of the tri-color Hornet of (?)VFA-97 with room for individualization.  
That aircraft could be:
  FatBack fuel tank along spine
                                  Centerline fuel
                                  LGB's on the next two pylons out
                                  AIM-9x next
                                  AAMRAM on wing tips
                                  Hookless
                                  No wing folds
                                  US Army markings lo vis

                                  Reduced (or enlarged) LERX for ground attack
                                  Reenforced tailplanes
                                  Enlarged horizontal stabs
                                  And the flaps would not drop after engine shutdown simply for the sake of the modeler!   :party:   :party:  :party:


Accompanied by EA-18G's
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Gary on October 17, 2005, 04:58:11 am
Why not take the Strike Eagle approach to the USAF Hornet? Conformal tanks and a massive iron bomb load. Keep sparrows on the rails just for fun, but dedicate her to the ground attack role in a bigger way.  
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 17, 2005, 05:00:40 pm
This is great!
I like the idea of keeping the LG the same for rough(er)-field capability.  Another idea I'd had was under the premis that the US Army would take over mud moving; consequently many F/A-18's would fall under their direct command.   Being medium-to-low altitude missions, the paint schemes would still be in the greys but much more along the line of the tri-color Hornet of (?)VFA-97 with room for individualization.   That aircraft could be:
FatBack fuel tank along spine
                                  Centerline fuel
                                  LGB's on the next two pylons out
                                  AIM-9x next
                                  AAMRAM on wing tips
                                  Hookless
                                  No wing folds
                                  US Army markings lo vis

                                  Reduced (or enlarged) LERX for ground attack
                                  Reenforced tailplanes
                                  Enlarged horizontal stabs
                                  And the flaps would not drop after engine shutdown simply for the sake of the modeler!   :party:   :party:  :party:

Accompanied by EA-18G's
To hell with painting the uber bug green and pasting U.S. Army on the side of it.  Give them something practical like the A-10 which has the range, payload, and loiter time to actually provide effective close air support with a cannon that will rip a tank to shreds.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: F-32 on October 18, 2005, 05:41:58 am
RAF Hornet - stick Rolls Royce engines in it, make the rear end bigger (thus adding drag) make the aircraft twice as expensive and slower than stock models and it'll be ready for service - practically 'off the shelf' ^_^  
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Daryl J. on October 19, 2005, 05:02:18 pm
Loiter time?   Don't all Legacy Hornets fly with at least 6 drop tanks and a nearby refueler?   :lol:


One fella in our modeler's club used to brief F/A-18 pilots prior to their missions and had taken a 1/72 Hasegawa kit and put drop tanks on every possible pylon including the wing tips and would describe the mission using that model.   Being an F-14 man himself he thought it would be a good ribbing of his ship mates.    He says that most of the Bug Drivers took it very well.   :-)



Daryl J.
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 21, 2005, 12:38:43 pm
RAF Hornet - stick Rolls Royce engines in it, make the rear end bigger (thus adding drag) make the aircraft twice as expensive and slower than stock models and it'll be ready for service - practically 'off the shelf' ^_^
A quick modification to represent such a version would be to use the RB199 exhaust parts from a Tornado, or how about the exhaust parts from the Rafale or Typhoon?

Loiter time?   Don't all Legacy Hornets fly with at least 6 drop tanks and a nearby refueler?   :lol:
One fella in our modeler's club used to brief F/A-18 pilots prior to their missions and had taken a 1/72 Hasegawa kit and put drop tanks on every possible pylon including the wing tips and would describe the mission using that model.   Being an F-14 man himself he thought it would be a good ribbing of his ship mates.    He says that most of the Bug Drivers took it very well. :-)
If I remember correctly, one of the things that came up during the fly-off against the A-7 was the fact that range of the F-18 was only marginally better or just a bit less than the A-7.  Then the whining (or was that an argument) was changed to "we neeeeeeeeeeeeeeed two engines instead of one" because of the over water mission requirements.  Gee, did that really matter with the A-4 or the A-7?  Both of which did their job very well with just one engine.  
Title: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Spellbinder99 on October 30, 2005, 05:59:41 pm
The July 1998 Scale Aircraft Modelling (Volume 20 Number 5) has an article about converting the ESCI 1/72 scale F-18 model into the YF-17. Complete with drawings, it might be  a help for doing the same in 1/48?

Cheers

Tony
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 01, 2008, 08:37:18 am
Has anyone given any consideration to adapting the wings from the F-15 to an F-18 fuselage?  Something that came to mind in the wee hours of this morning and now it is something that I need to share with you all in hopes that someone has attempted this recently. 
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on July 01, 2008, 12:01:00 pm
What's an RB-199?
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: pyro-manic on July 01, 2008, 12:24:00 pm
Tornado engine.  -_-
Title: Finnish 'Aggressor' Hornet ?
Post by: TsrJoe on September 12, 2008, 03:23:17 am
Finnish 'Aggressor' Hornet ?

... during a summer trip to Helsinki, whilst there doing my usual visits of museums i wandered into the military museum in Helsinki which had an interesting lil promotional/recruitment video showing Hornet flight operations, one thing that really caught my eye was one in an overall very dark (temporary black?) scheme F.18C Hornet, coded HN-444 which was seemingly being used as an 'aggressor' during acm. definately something i hadnt seen noted elsewhere and certainly a lil different from the norm.

Iv also found the same video on 'youtube' ...

Black Hornet ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZzf_12zdSU&feature=related
Title: Re: Finnish 'Aggressor' Hornet ?
Post by: TsrJoe on September 12, 2008, 03:24:56 am
... the snaps make the aircraft look darker than it seems in the footage as the serial number is stil visible against the darkened surface, im thinking some kind of temporary 'black wash' over the normal grey scheme ?
Title: Re: Finnish 'Aggressor' Hornet ?
Post by: TsrJoe on September 18, 2008, 07:48:26 am
 :bow: from the amazingly prolific hand of John Lacey (maverick) ... a profile of HN-444 as discussed ...

many thanks, cheers, Joe
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on September 26, 2008, 12:09:45 pm
Well at least one RAAF Hornet (A21-7) wore a dark (not as dark as that Finish one though) scheme for a while - I liked it:

(http://www.adf-serials.com/gallery/albums/Hornet-A21-7/RAAF_3A21_7.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Shasper on September 27, 2008, 05:42:23 pm
Similar or different to what the Pigs wear these days?

If memory serves right, the Maylay Bugs wear a very dark gray camo as well . . .


Shas 8)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Sauragnmon on September 27, 2008, 06:00:57 pm
That near-black bug looks damn cool.
Title: F-18XL
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on November 28, 2008, 09:25:21 am
Wouldn't it totally rock to have a tailless F-18 (Whether an F-18A-D or F-18E/F) derivative with a cranked arrow wing much like the F-16XL?

Has anyone thought of this?


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-18XL
Post by: Sauragnmon on November 28, 2008, 09:28:47 am
Not sure how viable the tailless concept would be, Kendra, but I agree, it'd look purely wicked, with or without the tails, having the full cranked delta on a bug.  Quite cool indeed.
Title: Re: F-18XL
Post by: GTX on November 28, 2008, 12:52:36 pm
Here you go:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/F18XL.gif)

BTW, may I suggest this be merged with the     
F-18 and F-17 Hornet thread (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,18207.0).

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on November 28, 2008, 02:31:53 pm
^ Sweet! :wub:

Now move the vertical stabilizers to the thingies* in the wings!  :wacko:




*highly-scientific, aeronautical term

Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on November 28, 2008, 03:08:47 pm
Here:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/F18XL2.gif)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-18XL
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on November 28, 2008, 03:28:14 pm
I wonder if there would be enough stability with the design to lose the vertical control surfaces completely such as the examples of the tailless F-16, F-22, and F-35 concepts that have appeared in various LockMart advertising. 
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on November 28, 2008, 04:14:45 pm
Nice work, Greg!  :thumbsup: Of course, I was impatient and took a shot at it myself.  :lol:

Here's my take, complete with head-on shot. Note the extended vertical stabs below the wing for high-alpha flight (and because it looks effin' cool! :wacko:) .

(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/F18XL-2.gif)

A set-up like this will go on a (probably twin-engined) Draken-whif one day.  :wacko:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Daryl J. on November 28, 2008, 05:35:50 pm
That actually looks pretty good.  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Daryl J., visualizing this in green splinter wraparound
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Sauragnmon on November 28, 2008, 06:51:47 pm
now let's see the Superbug XL!  The F/A/B-18XL, because it's FAB and Extra Large!

That Bug XL looks wicked!
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on November 28, 2008, 07:58:00 pm
Now that is a beautiful machine...

With the tailfins spaced farther apart like that it almost looks like a very distant evolutionary progression of the F7U
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: dy031101 on January 26, 2009, 12:51:34 pm
When I'm typing a new post for the Alt. Military News thread, I began wondering......

...... would the under-wing pylons of the F/A-18E/F leave enough room for double-carriage of MBDA Meteor missiles?

Ten Meteors under-wing (two under the outboard pylons as well as eight under the middle and inboard pylons), two more under the intakes, and two ASRAAM at the wingtips...... mean firepower it would be...... (for a what-if Royal Navy machine?)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Shasper on January 26, 2009, 03:41:11 pm
Dy, that is a possibility . . . one load-out has dual 120s on the main 4 pylons and a single round on the outer set of underwing externals.

Akula, would the new ventrals on your XL affect the aircraft's ability to rotate on TO & landing?


Shas 8)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on January 26, 2009, 04:36:04 pm
Shasper,

Quote
Akula, would the new ventrals on your XL affect the aircraft's ability to rotate on TO & landing?

That's actually a good question especially with those ventral fins.  I think it might be do-able if the fins were shortened a bit


ChernayaAkula,

I love that design -- though you might want to shorten the ventral fins as it might have some trouble rotating (I suppose you could use folding fins though).  The only thing that could possibly be cooler would be an F/A-18E or F/A-18F with an XL-ish wing.


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Sauragnmon on January 26, 2009, 07:30:06 pm
I find myself wondering about a Draken/Hornet bash.  Any of our wonderous graphics boys wanna take a sledgehammer to the concept?
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Daryl J. on January 26, 2009, 07:58:25 pm
A Draken/Hornet bash?   That would be cool.   

One can wonder if SAAB and Northrop had some sort of technology or data sharing going on for some time as the Northrop N-94 looks like a Draken embryo and there are rumors of the F-20/Gripen heritage, yes?


.....and now back to regular programming.....



Daryl J.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on January 27, 2009, 08:12:22 pm
<...> Akula, would the new ventrals on your XL affect the aircraft's ability to rotate on TO & landing?

Good question. On the one hand, they don't seem to extend that much below fuselage in the profile. On the other hand, the rear fuselage may slope up a good bit so they might stick out too much. Hmmm, maybe the fold away as on the MiG-23?  :unsure: Sorry, I was going more by looks than practicality.

Should I ever get round to build it wheels down, I'll still extend them. When the engines are shut down and the hydraulic pressure drops they drop by themselves. As the flaps do. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! :lol:

<...> The only thing that could possibly be cooler would be an F/A-18E or F/A-18F with an XL-ish wing.

 :thumbsup: Exactly! F/A-18XXL! :lol: Would the wing leading edge be more angular? With stealth and all that?
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Mossie on January 28, 2009, 05:44:07 am
Very nice!  You could make the lower fins partially or fully retractable, or pull the booms in to the trailing edge.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Weaver on January 28, 2009, 07:15:00 am
Yeah - my favorite wing/tail combination!  :thumbsup:

Another thing you could do is extend the booms beyond the trailing edge of the upper fins, mount the lower fins behind the upper ones, and have the end of the boom rotate through 180 deg to get them clear for landing. That would avoid any stores/flaps clearance issues with sideways folding fins.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on February 03, 2009, 07:08:36 pm
I think it would be more practical to use the regular F/A-18 tailfin set-up...  the current tailfin gets in the way of the wing-folding which is necessary to operate on carriers...

KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Shasper on February 04, 2009, 10:56:19 am
Just remove the angle from the verts & it'll be ok!

Shas b)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on February 04, 2009, 08:18:00 pm
Shasper, some folding wings fold more than 90-degrees.  Unless the tailfins canted inwards it wouldn't work.

Regardless, the tails as they are work just fine at high alphas...
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 07, 2009, 12:45:19 am
How about an F-18 with the wings from the F-15? 

MDD did produce some conceptual artwork of an F-15 with an F-18 style wing as a proposed improvement several years ago. 
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on February 07, 2009, 11:13:14 am
Jeff,

Sounds like an interesting idea.

Another idea I'm fond of would be adding the booms on the F-16 (they're on either side of the fuselage aft of the wing all the way to the tail and mount the speed brakes and horizontal stab) to the F-18


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: dy031101 on February 11, 2009, 08:05:51 pm
A simple exercise of fitting the F/A-18E with canards, courtesy of Konami and their Airforce Delta Storm for the first XboX......

The aircraft is named Airacobra II in the game......
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: rallymodeller on February 11, 2009, 09:09:03 pm
McDD's idea for the Super Hornet, as shown in the Aerofax F/A-18 book, is sort of like a cross between a Hornet and a Gripen -- rear mounted delta wings with upwardly-canted canards in place of the LERX. If my scanner was working (grrr) I'd scan it in for all to see.

I'll see if I can find pix online.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Sauragnmon on February 11, 2009, 09:33:09 pm
Very neat stuff, and I look forward to seeing that Delta Superbug, Rally.  Should be very interesting.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: TsrJoe on June 27, 2010, 11:57:02 am
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,18207.msg304969/highlight,aggressor.html#msg304969

just found out from an Ilmavoimat pilot at Kauhava that the Hornet i surmised was in a possible 'aggressor' scheme' was in actuality 'photoshopped' to appear dark emphasising an enemy type in the footage, bummer!  :banghead:

ah well, i stil fancy modelling it as a 'what if' anyway

cheers, Joe  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jschmus on July 29, 2010, 12:09:54 pm
Saw this posted on AWST, a possible stealthy F/A-18 derivative:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=af81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2&plckPostId=Blog%3aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

(the extra-long url works, believe it or not)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Taiidantomcat on July 29, 2010, 12:33:05 pm
It does indeed work!

(http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/13/a2013e7a-2c82-41b0-ad9f-730be748b00f.Full.jpg)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Chris707 on July 29, 2010, 01:44:53 pm
(http://www.dataviewbooks.com/yf-17.jpg)
(http://www.dataviewbooks.com/ultrabug.jpg)

One wonders if there would be a single major part in common...nah...
"Ultrabug"... kinda like the sound of that....

Chris
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on July 29, 2010, 03:39:24 pm
Those CFTs are rather subtle, aren't they? They stand out like the dog's danglies on the F-16s, but it took a second glance to see them on the Rhino.

Is that a "stealthy" drop tank? Neat idea!  :thumbsup: Wonder if it could be coupled with the stealthy AAM carriage on the Silent Eagle? A somewhat "stealthy" way of carrying AAMs and fuel!
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Shasper on July 30, 2010, 07:45:20 am
CA, I think thats a stealthy weapons pod. . . Read somewhere that Boeing was looking into that.

  Taking a look at the artwork, I wonder if they'll refit the dogtooth from the Growler?At anyrate, I'm thankful that they're going with the IRST mounted under the nose ala F-14, that whole bit about sticking it on the front of a droptank was crappy in the first place!
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Jschmus on August 02, 2010, 12:45:23 pm
Did someone ask about the stealthy weapons pod?  I found another image, this time from Secret Projects.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 02, 2010, 02:12:32 pm
Whoa!  :o Sierra Hotel! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/ukliam2.gif)

Regarding me asking whether that's a stealth drop tank, I just realised that the website Jschmus linked to specifically states that it's a stealthy pod carrying weapons. That's what I get for not reading the text and looking at the pretty pictures only. (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/doh.gif)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: dy031101 on August 02, 2010, 03:04:04 pm
So the weapons pod holds...... two MRAAMs or size-equivalent items?

Well I suppose the underwing hardpoints can be used when low-observability doesn't matter.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 02, 2010, 06:22:14 pm
^ Not really practical for bombs, but you could try to fit some AAMs Silent Eagle-style in the CFTs along the spine.  :wacko: A Kind of like the over-wing launcher as on the Lightning and Jaguar!  ;D

Don't know whether it'd be practical or even possible, but together with the weapon pod way you could carry up to 8 Slammers internally and have clean wings, which would not only benefit the low-observability, but the range as well since you wouldn't have to carry the draggy pylons (canted outwards for weapon separation issues)!

EDIT: Had a look at a Super Hornet kit and think fitting an AMRAAM into these CFTs would be very hard, as they're not all that deep. Bummer! :(

So the weapons pod holds...... two MRAAMs or size-equivalent items? <...>

Jschmus' link says it's supposed to hold 4 AMRAAMs. Guess two in the pod and two in the doors.  :huh:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Shasper on August 03, 2010, 12:23:47 pm
All that would need to be done is mount a stealthy SDB pod under the wings . . . Wait, doesn't Boeing have the SDB I contract? ;)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ysi_maniac on August 04, 2010, 05:58:51 am
A simple exercise of fitting the F/A-18E with canards, courtesy of Konami and their Airforce Delta Storm for the first XboX......

The aircraft is named Airacobra II in the game......
Love this concept :wub: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: gofy on October 17, 2010, 11:18:11 am
What about a single tail Hornet????
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ysi_maniac on October 17, 2010, 05:53:48 pm
^^^^
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,15987.0
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on February 04, 2011, 08:36:54 am
Now a mock-up (to be shown at AeroIndia (CLICKY! (http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_boeing-to-unveil-stealthier-f-a-18-aircraft_1502260))):

Silent Hornet!

The ISRT fairing under the nose is a bit more apparent now. Going by the text, these should be some interesting additions. Think the big LCD will make long-range ferry flights much more enjoyable. :lol:
Wonder if you could put extra pods on the underwing stations. With teh bombs then falling out of the confined pod, maybe the pylons could be angled inboard again, further reducing drag (they're angled outboard due to weapons release issues).

(http://s009.radikal.ru/i307/1101/3b/b6844150b95e.jpg)
http://s009.radikal.ru/i307/1101/3b/b6844150b95e.jpg

(http://i052.radikal.ru/1101/e4/6879902b7cbb.jpg)
http://i052.radikal.ru/1101/e4/6879902b7cbb.jpg

Links in case the pics don't show up.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Fulcrum on February 05, 2011, 12:53:59 am
Hmmm... it is giving me some ideas with the 1:48 F-18F model that I have yet to assemble & build.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Maverick on February 05, 2011, 01:24:22 am
Looks like Boeing are setting the stage if the F-35 fails....

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on February 05, 2011, 12:05:06 pm
Looks like Boeing are setting the stage if the F-35 fails....

Regards,

Mav

(http://www.newswireless.net/contentimages/medium/dilbert_bah_02.jpg)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Maverick on February 05, 2011, 04:06:15 pm
 ;D :lol: :thumbsup: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Taiidantomcat on February 06, 2011, 10:11:23 am

(http://www.newswireless.net/contentimages/medium/dilbert_bah_02.jpg)

Indeed.


It really looks cool. I no longer have to wonder what the F-18I would look like :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: dy031101 on February 06, 2011, 01:35:22 pm
I wonder if that centreline pod can be used by the Silent Eagle...... I just couldn't help to feel erked by the fact that so far the Silent Eagle could carry only four AMRAAMs in low-observable mode......
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Taiidantomcat on February 08, 2011, 06:59:19 pm
I just couldn't help to feel erked by the fact that so far the Silent Eagle could carry only four AMRAAMs in low-observable mode......

F-22 is the same
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: SebastianP on February 15, 2011, 01:27:40 pm
That AVWeek article had some curious info that contradicts what I've seen elsewhere - according to the article, you can stuff four AMRAAMs or a mixed load in the pod, but from what I remember of other articles and the presentation video, it's two AMRAAMS or up to 2000 lb worth of bombs, the mixed load being one 1000 lb bomb and one AMRAAM. On the other hand, the pod will also fit on the inboard stores station under each wing, bringing the total to six, or 6000 lb of bombs.

If the Japanese do get the Super Hornet, I hope they'll call it Suzumebachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzumebachi) - hard to pick another name for a giant Japanese Hornet... (Three-way decal swap idea: F-16C, F-2A, and F/A-18E. Super Hornet with Hinomaru on blues; F-2A done up as Super Falcon; and F-16C in Navy grays. ;D)

Cheers,

SP
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on February 15, 2011, 02:55:02 pm
<...> Super Hornet with Hinomaru on blues <...>

Shush! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/whistle.gif)

Love the idea of the name Suzumebachi!  :thumbsup: Now someone needs to design a suitable patch and squadron markings.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: rallymodeller on March 23, 2011, 01:17:17 am
Screw the F-35. Canada shoulda bought Superbugs in the first place.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Fulcrum on March 23, 2011, 01:44:01 am
Screw the F-35. Canada shoulda bought Superbugs in the first place.
I second that too, though it is almost impossible now(unless the Liberals somehow win the upcoming election) to change that since the government is focused on buying the F-35. It will definitely become a true "what-if".
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: anthonyp on August 27, 2011, 07:34:30 pm
If the Japanese do get the Super Hornet, I hope they'll call it Suzumebachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzumebachi) - hard to pick another name for a giant Japanese Hornet... (Three-way decal swap idea: F-16C, F-2A, and F/A-18E. Super Hornet with Hinomaru on blues; F-2A done up as Super Falcon; and F-16C in Navy grays. ;D)

Cheers,

SP

Resurrecting and still going OT here, but drop the F-16C in naval camo.  Go F-2, which has the bigger wingspan that would be more use on a carrier.

...  Dangit!!!  I used to have pics of what that'd look like on my website, but the files appear to have gone corrupt.  I'll have to reload them.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: MilitaryAircraft101 on September 14, 2011, 01:47:33 pm
I just couldn't help to feel erked by the fact that so far the Silent Eagle could carry only four AMRAAMs in low-observable mode......

F-22 is the same

It carries 6 staggered AMRAAMs and 2 Aim-9s in LO mode, the F-35 currently can carry 4 AMRAAMs in LO (stealth) and later blocks (4+) will be able to carry 6 (Block 1,2,3 can be upgraded as well)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: Taiidantomcat on September 14, 2011, 01:51:19 pm
I just couldn't help to feel erked by the fact that so far the Silent Eagle could carry only four AMRAAMs in low-observable mode......

F-22 is the same

It carries 6 staggered AMRAAMs and 2 Aim-9s in LO mode, the F-35 currently can carry 4 AMRAAMs in LO (stealth) and later blocks (4+) will be able to carry 6 (Block 1,2,3 can be upgraded as well)

Yeah I was actually corrected on that shortly after I said it, but the post was deleted after the thread veered off topic.  :thumbsup: You are correct on all counts
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on October 22, 2011, 04:51:41 pm
I know it is just the wing folding, but doesn't the SH look cool with the wing bent like this?

(http://cdn7.wn.com/pd/dd/d9/17da2a0bfcb4f5e10adb58598b44_grande.jpg)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: rickshaw on October 22, 2011, 05:30:50 pm
Is the wing significantly larger on the Super-Hornet?  Must be the angle but looks that way.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on October 22, 2011, 05:33:22 pm
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18_schem_01.gif)
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: MilitaryAircraft101 on October 22, 2011, 05:35:51 pm
I know it is just the wing folding, but doesn't the SH look cool with the wing bent like this?

(http://cdn7.wn.com/pd/dd/d9/17da2a0bfcb4f5e10adb58598b44_grande.jpg)
F/A-18E ala Ju-87!  ;) Wonder what's going to happen about the RAAF's 18 new SH option?
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on October 22, 2011, 05:40:46 pm
Wonder what's going to happen about the RAAF's 18 new SH option?

Wait until 2012 and you will find out.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2011, 02:07:36 am
And has anyone thought what If F35 program crashes and burns F18E/F could be in pole position to replace many western aircraft. Be interesting seeing the E with the Royal Navy and the F replacing the Tornado in RAF
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 27, 2011, 02:09:34 am
And has anyone thought what If F35 program crashes and burns F18E/F could be in pole position to replace many western aircraft. Be interesting seeing the E with the Royal Navy and the F replacing the Tornado in RAF

Perish the thought.........  :banghead:
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2011, 02:13:11 am
I have seen pics of the F18 with canadians equipped with BL755, Australian with ASRAM. It would be interesting seeing some other weapons combinations
like Sea Eagle, Alarm, Kormoran, Exocet, IRST and Meteor
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on October 28, 2011, 01:40:37 pm
I'm pretty sure that I have seen a Hornet with an IRIS-T and I seem to recall the RAAF did some trials with ALARM.
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: ChernayaAkula on October 29, 2011, 10:07:55 am

HERE'S (http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Missile_Taurus_Spain_F-A-18_MBDA.jpg) a big shot of a Spanish Hornet with a Taurus KEPD 350.

I'm sure I have a pic somewhere of a Spanish Hornet with a Python IV for trials. Here's an Aussie Hornet with Python IV:

(http://www.ausairpower.net/Rafael-Python-4-FA-18A-Fit-Check-1S.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that I have seen a Hornet with an IRIS-T and I seem to recall the RAAF did some trials with ALARM.

Spanish Hornets carry IRIS-T.

(http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ntm_cambrai_04.jpg)

Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: GTX on October 29, 2011, 12:23:26 pm
I knew it.  Thanks.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: F-18 and F-17 Hornet
Post by: tahsin on May 29, 2020, 02:53:22 am
Well, there really has been no new posts in this particular thread for the last 120 days but one could always wonder if anyone has ever stuck a 1/48 Hornet rear to 1/72 Su-27 wings and go along with that to have that very initial Su-27 side elevations. A-18, you know. Needs two internal bomb locations like the rotating mechanism on the Buccaneer, to still carry a regular and truncated center tank in the middle. Can also have F-15 like gunports but on both sides as GAU-8 have been too big for its own good so many times. TRAM ball from the A-6 is a must but no requirement to show it retracting. Vertical nails not Flanker type, not F-18 type but slimmer as 17. Sparrows can be hung from the wintips but an allover 1970s/80s look...