Talk:Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

MAWS (AAR-47||54||57)

Does anybody know any reliable source on the EO MAWS? Some sources claim it's AAR-57 or -54 while others claim there is no such think as EO MAWS on Super Hornet, or at least not installed yet ("The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems" by Norman Friedman, for example, seem to indicate EO MAWS AAR-54 and -57 were considered, but not installed on the Super Hornet). --Cover72 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I can't find any source that indicates that MAWS have actually been installed. Õf course manufacturers state on their pages that their systems could be installed on the SH. Head fake 87 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of reliable sources

Even though non-English sources are accepted, reliable sources have to be used. The latest introduction of a Russian commercial site that has advertising "spam" does not qualify. Infobox sections also do not normally include aircraft on order, as this information is best expressed in a section on production and orders. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is need to discussed what is commercial site... Information site www.flot.com (www.rusnavy.com) is most reliable what you can find about russian navy. Here is also some information about others navy. Site have only informational character (news, documents, studies,...). If you say about this site is it unreliable and commercial, then you must say it for 99% other refs sites becouse they is used or their owner do some commercial activity.
In infobox isn´t information about ordered planes (i thing it have same importance as number of totally build planes) - if it is this type information problematic, then sorry for add it. But most of information in infobox is in main section. --Hornet24 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Any site that has to rely on "hits" by using advertising links is considered primarily a commercial site. Many of these sites have a secondary purpose in generating revenue by persuading users to go onto the site. Each time someone accesses the site, the advertisers pay a small amount in residuals back to the site owner. FWiW, the number of aircraft on order can be incorporated elsewhere in the article, but the infobox is set up in a way so that it is a standard form. Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
I went on the site to check it and found that BMO (Bank of Montreal) as well as a computer game company is a sponsor, but many other sponsors selling everything from "flip phones" to management services appear in a rotating series of ads. The site itself was created by ProLabs with website management and development by the Lebrand Russia advertising agency. This site is a commercial site; it may try to "bury" that information, but that is its primary function, to generate advertising income. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
The article has many claims backed up by what you would call unreliable sources. A claim about a flaw in pylons, for example, is backed by navytimes.com. It is covered in advertising as well. Please provide the guideline and/or policy you got this information from because, as it seems now, this is only your preference in references. If we were to follow your preferences, most articles would be a stub. SpigotMap 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont know where you live, but 99% of internet pages is use for generating income!
All info in infobox can be incorporated ELSEWHERE in the article (is then infobox unusefull??)... As I say - if you think as info about order isn´t important, its your problem. I think it is important and it may should be in infobox... I don´t re-add it more. --Hornet24 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The guidelines for reliable sources can be found at WP:Identifying reliable sources (see "Sources that are usually not reliable" section). Somewhat related is WP:ELNO for links in the External links section. The Navy Times and its relatives (Defense News, Army Times, etc) all seem to have print versions. So having some ads on their page does not make them un-reliable in of itself. The issue is the orders info goes in the text, not under number built in Infobox. Recent Navy orders are already covered in the text. -fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to the statement that 99% of all websites are commercial in nature, on the contrary, numerous other sites are not commercial in origin and can represent personal or individual biographies, museums, government institutions and educational sites with no advertising links. I counted dozens of advertisers on the site in question. In simple language: its primary purpose to lure users onto the site; they make money when people use it. As to the infobox, it is a set form that doesn't have a provision for putting in "orders". You can introduce production orders somewhere else in the article. As you know, an order does not always translate into production of the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
After reviewing the guidelines for reliable sources as -fnlayson suggested, although I am still not comfortable with the large amount of advertising on the site, I do agree that it CAN be considered a legitimate news source and my apologies to User talk:Hornet24 for bring up a "hornet's nest." (pun intended). FWiW, I will endeavour to find a way to properly source this information. Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
  • The last part is not necessary. The number on order by the US Navy and RAAF is already covered & cited in their subsections under Operational history. -fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"order does not always translate into production of the aircraft" is reason, why I only add it below producted ones. Order can be changed, but produced number is changed more often and once is both number same... In some pages i have problems to find how much planes are ordered - that is reason why add it to infobox... Hornet´s nest - nice :) And about apologise - I dont need it - it´s only discussion a I don´t take it personally :) --Hornet24 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shorter range than predecessors

Please correct me if I am wrong, however after reading this article, there is a paragraph lauding the subject with how versatile it is by taking up the roles of multiple different aircraft it has replaced. However, there is not mention of the shorter non-in air refueled range of the Super Hornet compared to the F-14 (already mentioned in a footnote in the article) KA-6D orA-6E (all aircraft that the super hornet have replaced). I understand WP:NOTFORUM, that being said if this statement can be supported by a reliable sources and its effect on operational range of current Carrier Air Wings, should such a statement be included in this article? Such as is mentioned 1 2 3. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by "The empty weight of the Super Hornet is about 11,000 lb (5,000 kg) less than that of the F-14 Tomcat that it replaced, while approaching, but not matching its payload / range" ? Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Going from the section above the operational strike range of USN aircraft has dropped from abound 600 miles to 300 miles in 20 years A-6 to F/A-18.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that should be added in the footnote? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Side-by-side pic

Does anyone have a pic of a Super Hornet next to a legacy Hornet? It would illustrate the size difference much better than simply saying that one is about 30% bigger than the other..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.97.2 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a side by side pic but you honestly cant tell the difference. You would have to be looking down on the aircraft from above to see the difference in size. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They cost almost a billon dollars each.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/air-force-eyes-18-more-super-hornets-as-delays-dog-our-new-fighter/story-e6frg8yo-1226036923907 Defence officials are preparing for the government a range of options to fill this looming gap in air defences with the most likely being the purchase of a further 18 Super Hornets for about $800 million each.

So can we update the per-unit price in this article from this RS? Hcobb (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that is a great typo! The Australian needs to hire better proofreaders. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pentagon denies everything: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/04/12/awx_04_12_2011_p0-309325.xml&headline=US Navy: No Formal Query On Australia F/A-18s Hcobb (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is WP-is-not-news-type stuff. That's primarily why we don't recommend spending much time addressing rumors in aircraft articles. If it gains traction in the press, then we can condiser reporting such stuff. Btw, I looked to Wikinews last week, and there is almost nothing there devoted to Defense-type news of any kind! I really think this is an area you would enjoy contributing to on Wikinews, and that you should seriously consider writing there. As no one else is doing it there, you'd have free reign to do want you wanted there within the existing guidelines of Wikinews. - BilCat (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption could be wrong

Countermeasures or sunrise?

At the section "Radar signature reduction measures", the photo caption reads, "The aircraft banking away in the background can be seen launching infra-red countermeasure flares." But isn't that just the sunrise? I'm not so sure about the smoke trail but the brightness could just be the sun. Why would it be launching countermeasures anyway? So close to the other plane? -- Ϫ 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the sun doesn't smoke that much. It is launching countermeasures to make for a more interesting photograph (this isn't an operational mission but a photo op for the camera man).

E and F roles

Having just read an ex Royal Navy harrier pilot suggesting that the Fleet Air Arm order the F/A-18. I looked here for more details on what he was suggesting. He said they should but the E for the strike role and the F for the fleet defence fighter role as the two man crew would halve the workload. I presumed that is how the USN operated but can find nothing to confirm that how the operate the different models. If its true than it needs to be added in to the article somewhere. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Navy's page and it seems that it is the other way around. It says that the remained D (two seat models) are used for attack and also states that an E (single seat) model intercepted hostile targets in a no-fly zone. Also the pilots I talked to ( I didnt ask this question right-out however) seemed to say that duel seat fighters are normally used for attack. The F-15C is usually configured as an interceptor while the F-15E is normally used for attacking ground targets. However modern weapons mean that either aircraft (single or duel seat) could perform either role. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The trick is the AESA radar that can provide a "full screen" display of air mode targets and another "full screen" display of ground mode targets at the same time and the Super Hornet has a lot of other ways to provide Sensory overload. So the long range E models are kept near the carrier where they only have to deal with air targets while the short range F models are sent far away to tackle combined air and ground defenses. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying the long range fighters stay near the ship and the short ranged ones go far off? Can you link to where you got that from please. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of his rear end, as usual. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Challenge accepted! http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/PJA.htm (Always flying by the seat of my pants...) Hcobb (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
:) - BilCat (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And more directly:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/RRG.htm singles were adequate for day strike, escort, and CAS. Night strike was questionable, but adverse weather was definitely a dual mission;

So single close CAP and dual long strike as posted above. Q.E.D. Hcobb (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article only said that the duel-seat outperformed the single. The fact that the navy continued buying single seat fighters somewhat contradicts this however, and it still says nothing on which fighter is chosen for which role. It doesnt prove your point really and it's also outdated as I believe we are discussing Super Hornets. Also your information said the duel seat hornets had less fuel but GREATER range than the single seat model, which is the opposite of what you said. If you simply miss-matched the E and F fighters for their seat layout then I can see what you meant, but otherwise your source actually disproves you. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I took the ref and ran to the overall Hornet article so you can go adjust the text there if you like. Hcobb (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So in a nut shell the F is more than a two seater dual control aircraft, but we don't know if the two versions E and F are used in any one role.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Single has more fuel than the dual, single has slightly greater range than the dual. Although as the single is primarily an air defense fighter versus the strike focus of the dual, the flight profiles of air-air combat are more fuel intensive than strike missions negating the increase in fuel capacity. Also remember that there is a cost penalty for having two aircrew, doubling your aircrew personnel costs. Add to this that if all the jets on a carrier were duals then there would need to be more bunks, food, supplies, working area etc.. If only 20% of the missions require two people then only 20% of your combat aircraft need to be duals. (Not actual percentage)-Mrteeve

I thought I added a ref describing the tradeoffs? Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RAAF vs. USN Operational History

Got to love Wiki, where else would you see equal space devoted to a service with 2 squadrons and another with 50... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cost

In the infobox the total procurement cost is given as $3.95bn for 500 units, which would give a total per unit cost of under $10m. But the flyaway cost is $55m; surely this should be less than the total unit cost, not more? Am I missing something? Earendil11 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also what's the support for this price number?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-02/lockheed-stealth-jet-may-beat-boeing-eurofighter-for-japan-deal.html Boeing last year said it would offer F-18 Super Hornets to the U.S. for $49.9 million each, down from $68 million in 2000.

The world wonders. Hcobb (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Aging and obsolete Super Hornet becomes election issue

http://politicmo.com/2011/10/11/wagner-blasts-mo-house-boeing-resolution/

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as an "aging and obsolete aircraft" is more hyperbole than fact; is the GOP candidate thinking of the F/A-18 Hornet? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC).
Nope, it's a nearly unanimous dig at the Super Hornet from the state that builds Super Hornets. Hcobb (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Boeing X-32 did not have the Super Hornet package

The Super Hornet has the gear that was designed for the X-32 program, but never installed in that aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

5th generation strike fighter

As Boring Aircraft is still maintaining this boast on their product page.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm (View source)

And they are a RS about their own products, no?

So let's just move the SH to the 5th gen page. I'm sure nobody will mind. Hcobb (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So the 5th generation fighter mention in the page's source code, huh. This has been discussed before here or somewhere... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RAAF Section

The quote from Joel Fitzgibbon, which required a citation, seems to be a bit of a mash up of quotes which while contextually accurate, are difficult to reference well. I have added two citations which, between them, cover all the points he makes. However, I had to use a second hand reference for the last part of the quote. This was because the link in the page I refer to is not longer valid. I suspect this is because it is an old media release and Mr Fitzgibbon is no longer the Defence Minister.Flanker235 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A Sweet pricetag

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ae70a68b6-0e96-4b6d-8721-c9adaa87f8d3 And, while there is no current F-16 data in US budget documents, the F/A-18E/F is a similar design delivered under Pentagon rules, under similar labor rates and using the same supplier base. The URF for the 2012 buy is $55.6 million, engines included. (p. 117)

Is Sweetman correct on the price? Hcobb (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Small Question, new built or built from old Hornets?

Hey,

my english "sux" and I don't really get it, I know that large parts of the super hornet are new and its therefore more than just an "large upgrade", but old F-18 hornets are upgraded to the Super Hornet? The Article says 500 built by April 2011 and the Hornet Article says:

Number built: F/A-18A/B/C/D: 1,480.

If you look at operators there are a bit over 400 in US-Service (late 2008) and around 300 in service of forgein navys/air forces, so this would limit the number of super hornets to 1,480 (some are lost or in other armies, so even less) except you built everything new? I understood it right?! Greetings from snow-covered Berlin, Germany, Europe Kilon22 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Super Hornets aircraft are all entirely newly-built, and are substantially larger than the 'classic' Hornets. It's not possible to modify a 'classic' Hornet into a 'Super' Hornet due to the extensive differences between the two designs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Super Hornet has the designation F/A-18E and F/A-18F. These are not included in the F/A-18A, B, C, & D total you list above. The totals are separated in the Hornet and Super Hornet articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks guys for your answers. Yea I knew this with the substantially larger than the classic because I added this (and the programm costs of over 42 billion until FY 2011) into German Wikipedia. But maybe larger parts replaced smaller. But thanks for the answer. So the US Air Force can sell the classic hornets to developing countries for low prices which can not afford modern jets and built some new "super hornets", but I think the F-35 is more attractive now, in the last decade maybe the super hornet was a good deal but now... the F-22 were stopped, one reason were the costs, most expensive fighter aircraft ever I think, but on the other hand an export to Japan was not allowed by the congress, I mean Japan is not China which is stealing tech and the export would have reduced the costs, but well... politicians and military... often 2 different points of view. Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

These are carrier-based fighters, and not used by the US Air Force. The classic Hornets are operated by the US Navy and Marines and a few other nations. Several of the exported aircraft were former US aircraft. The Super Hornet is operated by the US Navy and Australia. Australia was interested in the F-22 also, but it was not allowed to be exported to protect its stealth tech. (Probably a weak reason given the F-35 is exported.) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Some USAF officers of the 390th Electronic Combat Squadron fly aboard some Boeing EA-18G Growlers, but these are exchange officers operating in USN squadrons. The difference in the exportability of the F-22 is partially due to the operational maintenance issues they require that are instead "baked into" (pun intended) the F-35. Hcobb (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interception radius

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/18498-super-hornet.html For example, an F/A-18E undertaking a long-range intercept in the Canadian North would have a combat radius of 700 nautical miles (NM)

That's almost twice what we note here. Who's wrong? Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Stat block for Advanced Super Hornet

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p45-588048.xml&p=2

Notable enough to include yet, or just vaporware? Hcobb (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In the text, maybe. The specs table is for the main variant, not a possible/potential variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RCS reduction features for the Super Hornet

The sub-part about these RCS reduction features is almost copy-pasted from a paper by the quite infamous Dr. Carlo Kopp. Here is the source and the related part of the paper (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5.htm):

"The F/A-18E aircraft makes considerable use of panel join serration and edge alignment. Close inspection of the aircraft shows considerable attention paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses centimetric band opaque perforated panels. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter travelling waves away from the aircraft boresight.

It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF."

Much more interesting is the following text of the same paper:

"None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types."

This part is clearly wrong, either through outdated information or deliberate misrepresentation. As shown by the following photos, http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/EA_Rafale_Web.gif and http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4475/img3938fk4.jpg, both the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon have S-ducts, a RCS reduction measure which consists in having the inlet shaped in a way preventing incoming radar waves from hitting the engine blades. And in a much more efficient version than the Super Hornet's ducts, as can be seen with this photo: http://imageshack.us/a/img176/552/f18e.jpg

Furthermore, the photo of the Rafale clearly shows serrated edges, which were quoted by Dr. Kopp as a RCS reduction measure.

Thus, the source for the sub-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's RCS reduction measures has been proven clearly wrong on the specific topic for which it is quoted, and should therefore be considered unlreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.4 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Fifty million per aircraft

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_30_2013_p58-647430.xml&p=2

It's a biased source, but is it reliable enough to use? Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa18-super-hornet/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tomcat is a comparable aircraft?

Super Hornet replaced the Tomcat which is 25 years older. Should remove F-14 from "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" --MarsRover (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable accidents

I have removed the list of accidents and incidents from the article as none appear to be particularly notable, as a military aircraft accident to be notable it really needs to kill somebody important, civilians on the ground or hit something important - all these appear to be the sort of accidents that regularly happen to military aircraft. Pleased to here if anybody has any evidence that any of the three accidents that were listed are different from the norm and notable. MilborneOne (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Similar accidents have been listed under the F/A-18 page, like midair collisions, so I'm not sure why they can't be listed here. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks had not noticed, I have removed the non-notable accidents at McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Carrier Based or Carrier Capable

Shouldn't we edit the introduction from carrier based to carrier capable, since Australian air force does not use it to take off from carriers. Only USA are using the super hornets in carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.168.24 (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs explanation of crew roles in E and F models

The article needs to explain differences and roles of the single-seat E and two-seat F models. What are the possible missions of each model, what do the crew do ? I assume the E may be a pure fighter and the F has strike capability with the second crewman being ordnance operator ? Would the F also be used as a trainer ? Can the F be flown with just the pilot ? A good article should discuss all this. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Both aircraft can perform the same missions. The two seat version is preferred for the more difficult missions. I do not believe that there are any F/A-18F setup as training aircraft. I'll do some searching and shake some trees and see what I can find. The only definite answer I have right now is that the F/A-18E has more internal fuel and can take a greater weight of ordinance aloft.Two way time (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Seconding this Rcbutcher's post. This article isn't complete without an explanation of what the second crewmember does. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Weight?

I see plenty of comparisons as to how much heavier it is than other aircraft, but nothing tells me how heavy this thing is. I shouldn't have to look up the other craft's weight just to know the weight of this craft. Worse yet, the other craft suffers from the same flaw in the article! 96.253.89.110 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the specification section where the weights are listed? MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

lowest speed

Pls can someone tell, what is the lowest speed it can fly for the F/A-18E/F ? I mean is there a speed limit for not stalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.51.109 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do a Google-search (and sign your posts with four tildes.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Budgeting and readiness

Is this important to this article, or will it be historical for later? 

Headline-1: Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft grounded

QUOTE: "Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly, according to statistics provided by the Corps." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC) -- PS: This may, or may not, apply to future editing.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Variants

Why are squadrons solely equipped with the F ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.137.89.64 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't answer that or even understand it. But F/A-18-XT needs a picture. Especially since Boeing is trying to compete it against F-35C. 214.25.29.6 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no major redesign here as your post implies. The Advanced Super Hornet (Super Hornet Block 3 seems to be Boeing's current name) includes conformal fuel tanks, weapon pods, improved engines and minor radar signature improvements. See the Advanced Super Hornet section in the article and the references listed there for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you any source for that?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There are multiple sources for the upgrades in the article section (Advanced Super Hornet) now as stated above. Newer articles are available on aerospace & defense news sources such as aviationweek.com, flightglobal.com, defensenews.com and others. --Finlayson (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why use the British date format?

Boeing is a U.S. company, so why is the date shown in the British (or Canadian) format: On 8 December 2017 or The Super Hornet first flew ..... on 29 November 1995.[ Peter K Burian (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That date format is also used for the US military, see WP:MILFORMAT. This format is used or should be used consistently in the article since is a US military product. --Finlayson (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks; I was not aware of that. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Kuwait Super Hornet

News About Kuwait Is Finally Ready to buy Super Hornet. Here's The Link :https://theaviationgeekclub.com/kuwait-finally-ready-purchase-40-f-18-super-hornet-strike-fighters/.124.82.18.223 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential operators - Canada

Hi, the article states "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that pending sale of 18 fighters to Canada along with a possible sale of another 70 was adversely affected by Boeing's actions against competitor Bombardier Aerospace of Montreal.[136] These included a complaint to the U.S. government about Bombardier selling CSeries passenger aircraft to Delta Air Lines at unduly low prices. As a result, in late September 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce proposed a 219% tariff on CSeries aircraft to be imported into the U.S." However, my update which I believe is relevant to the article: "On 26 January 2018, the four USITC commissioners unanimously determined against Boeing that the U.S. industry is not threatened and no duty orders will be issued, overturning the imposed duties. Boeing declined to appeal the ruling." was reverted. Any editor agree with my edit? Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I didn't remove it, but there's little in your new text to tie to the relevant text with a long paragraph in between. That should be part of the existing tariff paragraph for it to make complete sense, imo. I'll look into doing this... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

New main photo

U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet

Hi Y'all,

I think that the current main photo dose convey the majesty of the Super hornet. any new suggestions?

Sincerely,

Moses White


My suggestion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseswhite1 (talk • contribs)

Head-on views aren't great for the first recognition image for an article. (Hohum @) 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a good image, but not a good choice for the main image in the Infobox. Side views generally better show the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Coating/Paint

Among the RCS reduction measures is also the coating. Nothing like the F-22 or F-35 but it was a consideration. I could easily find sources for Block II and III. --Moritzgedig (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

F-18E Super Hornet profile photo.

I believe this has a much more clearer photo of the F-18 Super HornetMhayes3 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The current image provides a better view of the configuration of the aircraft so I dont support changing it to your suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Flight crashes of the F/A-18

U.S. Navy pilot Lt. Richard Bullock died when his F/A-18E Super Hornet crashed in the vicinity of Trona, California, on Friday 3 Jun 22 afternoon.

“Friday’s incident marks the fourth Super Hornet crash since 2019. In 2019, one crash resulted in the death of the pilot and minor injuries to seven civilians who were hit by debris when they gathered at a scenic route to watch the fighter jets,” The Washington Examiner reported.

“A crash in 2020, and one last October, resulted in both pilots safely ejecting from their planes during training missions,” according to NBC News. “One landed in Death Valley National Park, while the other landed in the Mojave Desert,” the report added.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/identity-of-navy-pilot-who-died-in-training-mission-crash-revealed?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand

2600:1700:7890:5A40:2501:A721:468F:743B (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet/Archive_2&oldid=1179279263"