Quick question about the F/A-18 Super Hornet

[fingolfin361]

I read a journalist's blog post about the Super Hornet in regards to India's MMRCA deal, and I need a clarification.

The journalist mentioned something to the effect of, there is word going around that the Super Hornet is not very highly regarded by senior AF personnel, on grounds of it's 'Naval Heritage' influencing its development.

My question is, if this is true, is a valid concern? Is this true of most Naval aircraft- apart from obvious cases such as Harriers and other V/STOL's- and in the case of the Super Hornet in particular?

Sorry if this is inane. Thanks.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually not really.
The YF-17, which it is based on, was originally a rival competitor of the YF-16 for a US Air Force contract. The YF-17 was rejected by the Air Force but drew the interest of the Navy and after a lot of development became the F-18.
So to answer your question, the F-18 started its life as an airplane designed for the Air Force.

 

[AVON]

The journalist mentioned something to the effect of, there is word going around that the Super Hornet is not very highly regarded by senior AF personnel, on grounds of it's 'Naval Heritage' influencing its development.
My question is, if this is true, is a valid concern?

The problem the Hornet 'family' of fighters face is that it was the last fighter to be designed without using John Boyd's energy maneuvering theory! As such, it is good at the low speed/low energy dogfight which leaves the Hornet at a disadvantage in high speed dogfights. The low speed dogfight is fine in a furball (16 Vs 16 or more fighters).

Sorry if this is inane. Thanks.

No need to apologize, it is an honest question.

Actually not really.
The YF-17, which it is based on, was originally a rival competitor of the YF-16 for a US Air Force contract. The YF-17 was rejected by the Air Force but drew the interest of the Navy and after a lot of development became the F-18.
So to answer your question, the F-18 started its life as an airplane designed for the Air Force.

Initially, the Navy was not interested in the YF-17 but, even after rejecting the YF-16 as being unsuitable for carrier operations. The Navy looked around and discovered they still needed a replacement for the A-7 in the light attack role and F-4 in the fighter role. The Navy still hated Northrop and wanted as little to do with his company as possible, so they used the excuse that Northrop had no carrier aircraft design experience, and they arranged McDD to team with Northrop to produce the naval variant of the F-18 and the agreement was that Northrop would build the F-18L landbased variant.
At that time, there were also two variants being planned, an attack variant and a fighter variant. Improvements in avionics and software enabled one airframe to fly both missions thus, the F/A-18 was born.
Yes the F-16 can fly both missions also but when you add all the requirements for carrier operations, the performance of the F-16N is degraded more than the F/A-18A.

Attached is a comparison of the F-16A versus the F-16N and the reason the Navy could not accept it. The Conversion Of The F-16A To The Navalized F-16N -AW&ST issues January 20, 1975 Page 28 and Jan. 27, 1975 Page 17

There are numerous differences between the land-based F-16 (Model #1601) and the aircraft carrier version (Model #1600).
1) The fuselage is stretched, both forward and aft.
2) The wingspan is wider and each wing has an increase in area of 57 square feet.
3) The flaps are larger.
4) The distance between the trailing edge of the wing to the stablator is greater.
5) The area of the stablator is greater and the width is greater.
6) The fuselage area ahead of the cockpit is broader.
7) The chord of the wing is longer.
8)
A) Model #1600 would be powered by the P&W-401 engine.
B) Model #1601 was to be powered by the P&W-F100 engine.
9) The stablators are larger in area and their span is greater.
10) The Navy version (#1600) of the F-16 would have been manufactured by Ling-Tempco Vought (LTV).

 

[A Can of Man]

Interesting stuff.
Isn't the F-16N in service with the Navy in their Aggressor squadrons?
I'm not too familiar with the P&W F401 but the F100 is what the usual in service F-16s use right? And F-15s as well I think. Was there a special reason for building one with a different engine?

 

[AVON]

Isn't the F-16N in service with the Navy in their Aggressor squadrons?

The F-16N that the Navy uses is the F-16A Block #15 (originally) painted in aggressor colors.

I'm not too familiar with the P&W F401 but the F100 is what the usual in service F-16s use right?

I googled "P&W 401 engine" and got nearly 10,000 hits. Correct the F-15 and F-16 both used the P&W F100 engine.

Was there a special reason for building one with a different engine?

The F-16 proposed for the Navy was different in that it used sealants and alloys to deal with the salt water environment. The P&W-401 engine was also used on the F-14B! What the differences were between the F-14Bs engine and the one proposed for the Navy's F-16, I don't know. I do know the engine used for the F-14B was from the "derivative fighter engine" (DFE) program which used part of the B-1 bomber's engine core modified for fighters.

 

[A Can of Man]

I read up on the F-16N and TF-16N and it turns out that it was a modified F-16C/D series that underwent some considerable changes.
Instead of the APG-68 radar commonly found in F-16C/D Falcons, it used the APG-66 which is more common in F-16A/B series Falcons. The reason was to reduce the weight of the aircraft in many areas because the body was strengthened to withstand the high Gs of dogfighting.
Also there were no weapons stores on the F-16N other than to fit the ACMI pod.
Unfortunately cracks started to appear on the F-16N and therefore they were phased out and changed with F-16As as the F-16 series aircraft was still the ideal choice for simulating enemy aircraft.
They tried to export the F-16N but found no takers.
This is different to the navalized version of the F-16N but I found out about it while looking it up.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article22.html