NZFF

I found this very interesting,

See Here

He said the Super Hornet was Larger, Slower, and Uglier than the Classic Hornet and yet the RAAF replace the F-111 with an aircraft that does the job with half the weapons, at half the distance and half the speed...

What do you think?

Tend to agree that f18f arent ideal to replace f111s but they are quite a different aircraft from the current aussie f18a/b models ie more power,more payload and modern avionics, also believe they contain more fuel than the f18a/b, should be interesting to see a rhino pitted against a su30mk or mig29 in future years

h290master wrote:

QUOTE (h290master @ Jan 12 2009, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tend to agree that f18f arent ideal to replace f111s but they are quite a different aircraft from the current aussie f18a/b models ie more power,more payload and modern avionics, also believe they contain more fuel than the f18a/b, should be interesting to see a rhino pitted against a su30mk or mig29 in future years

That report states:

There is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps "Super Bug" is a better descriptor. Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight - dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.

so, it may have more fuel, perhaps more power and more modern avionics but it can't carry the extra stores without damaging them?? Newer is not necessarily better...Same story with the F22 Raptor - the avionics are whizzbang, and it's the first true "information age" fighter, but the first fighter squadron to convert still want the AIM-9X gear from their old F-15s, which wasn't thought necessary for the F-22 (they thought the F-4 didn't need a gun at first too )

Mark

Still its better than what we have.