How many times do you people have to be told - YF23 Black Widow - OPEN YOUR EYES - f22 was the cheaper option. Australia should have gone to Northrop direct.
Everyone always just talks about the planes, but it's the man (or woman for that matter) flying it that really matters. F/A-18 vs. Su-35 when the Hornet pilot has 10x the hours in training, I'll bet the Hornet wins eight or nine out of ten times.
@megatox100 Super Hornet was built for the US Navy esp. for aircraft carriers. A naval version of the F-22 is too expensive so the SH is the fill in gap until the F-35C go into operational service for the Navy.
@MrAbhishekricky the performance to dollar ratio is incomparable..if they have money to spend on a fighter almost half as much then its all their decision.super hornet is still one of the best multi role out there.
I'm the producer / editor of this video... also shot a lot of the air-to-air footage in the Super Hornet. The F/A-18 and F-15 fighter jets were origionally built by McDonnell Douglas, which merged with Boeing in the late-90s... so now Boeing proudly builds them here in St. Louis, Missouri.
Interesting times in the world. F18E imo is just a stopgap until we get genuine 5t gen fighters. But by then i think the world will be a different place. Australia i only hope you invest in developing the tech yourself, and not rely on any one else for finished products.
Excellent! Definately tax dollars spent on our nation's defence for once. But useless without highly trained RAAF pilot's with who'w the greatest investment lie's. I for one would have absolute faith in them.
It sure would be awesome if Australia made an aircraft carrier for their Super Hornets. I can see a carrier being kind of useful in that part of the world.
Super Hornet is NOT a new generation. Its same as Su-35BM. Gen4++ except slower, lower range, less agile and unable to supercruise. Basically enlarged Hornet with bigger range. I'd choose an F-14 over hornet and deeply upgrade F-14 rather then slower lower range platform. Hornet was a folly. They should have made new-build F-14s.
Nice advert. But doesn't answer a fundamental question. Being much less maneuverable, non-stealth, slower,, with lower T/W how is it supposed to compete with Su-30MK? Even with PESA radar, it beats Super Hornet in every way. F-15 already beats Super Hornet and loses to Su-30MK so why buy an inferior machine? The EW suites are on par but Flanker carries IRST for stealthy ground-controlled intercept from behind. Shouldn't have bought them. F-15SE with IRST should have been purchased
@Spetsnazovets The SH has a low RCS witch su-30mk lacks and has a AESA radar witch the su-30 lacks plus the SH has the new aim-120D missiles, With these 3 things gives the SH a BVR advantage over the su-30mk. The only advantage the su-30 has is its maneuverability, But the SH has the BVR advantage so it will win. Simple the SH will kill the su-30 before the SH gets in to the close dogfight. The f-18 SH is getting a IRST under the gun pod of the jet soon.
Su-30MKI has R-27ET/EP/ER with range longer then AIM-120D
Both feature highly accurate radars with phased arrays with detection ranges far in excess of missile range which actually gives Su-30MK advantage thanks to R-27ER/ET/EP superior flight range.
Does SH have ESA DRFM jammers specifically made to defeat AMRAAM mono-pulse seeker? No. Flanker comes standard with it. And jammers ESAs point both back and forward. simple upgrade to AL-31F-M1/M2 and Su gets supercruise. Got more questions?
@aussiepride2005 LOL That was a rather late reversal of the previous positions where English pilots openly admitted that they lost to Su-30MKI hands down. Taken a little long to make that public don't you think? Word is long out. Can't deny months afterwards. I read that article. Was a joke and a half. Just like the yanks claimed to have won the red flag when they were comprehensively beaten.
@N1cholas240 Also the RCS you mentioned, its still sufficiently high to spot SH at distances beyond missile range of both fighters. You seem to thing that "lowered RCS" claim means that its as low as that of F-22. Not so. And will never be. Radars are powerful and accurate enough these days, whether PESA or AESA, to see at much further and much more accurately then before. SH still has enough rounded and curved shapes to return radar pulses well enough for long range detection.
I know the difference between low RCS and stealth. the r-27er range is 130km the r-27et range is 120km and the aim-120d range is about 200km plus they have dual pulse mortar witch the r-27 lacks.
The DRFM jammer cant jam the new monopulse radar in the amraam D version because it has polarization in the signal, The polarization was made as a response to counter DRFM jammer. plus the AMRAAM seeker goes active at 20 km it takes only 10 seconds for the mach4 missile to reach the mach2 jet.
@N1cholas240 Maneuverability of amraam is still insufficient to down a well-flow fighter. MiG-29 with no ECM avoided 3 of them. AMRAAM with 56% effectiveness against targets achieved WITHOUT mass ECM will fail A LOT in heavy ECM environment.
ECCM are part of every missile setup but you are missing that once datalink to AMRAAM is jammed its then blind. Also jammers have vastly more power then seeker
AFAIK the 200km AMRAAM is not yet in service either.
@Spetsnazovets The aim-120D went in to service this year. The USAF received 95 of them early this year. And you cant jam a data link because the AESA radar witch cant be detected or jammed is datalinking the amraam. Also the aim-120 maunverbility is unkown but reliable sources claim 40g. And when did a mig-29 dodge a aim-120???. In kosovo the aim-120 shot down mig-29s with no problem and that was the older amraam the A and B models. Aim-120c has a 90% KP and the new D has higher then 90% KP.
@N1cholas240 Combat record of AMRAAM is 60% tops. Fact.
Please give me a link to the 200km amraam. Without a ramjet engine it'll never reach that range. Even latest MBDA Meteor has 180km tops
LOW probability of intercept, NOT ZERO probability. Link can't be LPI or missile will not pick it up. Laws of physics are same for everyone hence stuff can be or is made to counter LPI. There is LPI radar. Not link.
After seeing your profile this was a waste of time. Bye.
@Spetsnazovets Their are many links claming that the aim-120 has a 200km range, and you dont need ramjet for that type of range. And a AESA is LPI so i dont know how you think its signal its sending to the missile is not LPI. Send me a link that claims the LPI is not happing when sending a link. I know AESA can stay LPI when sending a link , The only time AESA is not LPI is if it illuminates a target for a long time or starts jamming This is not LPI. You also know the radar is sending the link.
We should buy more of these... replace our regular hornets with em, and as BRILLIANT as they are. Ditch the f-35 and work with the US and be the second nation after the US to get 6th generation planes. (F/A-XX)
@Kirkzzy show me your source that claims that. Because i havent found anything that said that. And i think your getting the f/a-xx confused with the f-35.
@N1cholas240 No I'm not. I never suggested this as the F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin. I got a link but it won't let me post here. I'll send you it in a pm.
@lucky540er You are 100% correct. I am jealous! You could just fly into NZ Airspace and do whatever you want and all we could do is send a Cessna up with a passenger and a handgun. Thats if the lefties don't suceed in banning those aswell. I guess paying out the benefits to the 1 in 4 Kiwis on one is more important than the ability to protect our Liberty; but whats the point when we are destroying that ourselves. Honestly; we feel castrated and cheated as a nation.
@kcaj123456 hahahaha douche, defence forces are governed by less rules...... p.s Australia isnt about numbers, its about performance, yeah many armies may have numbers but lets look at their results.... no point measuring dicks.... whats so good about a big swinging dick that cant do the job properly.
The ADF has helped alot of U.S soldiers and if i remember correctly it was Australian S.A.S that saved the lives of the downed Blackhawk crew from a mountain away!
@Blandy086 Actually a better way to put it.. Australia makes up for its small amount of infantry numbers (which most of our neighbours rely on.. and is partly why we still are ahead of them) we make up for in numbers in our air force and navy... hence why we still have air and naval superiority over our neighbours. Now if we were fighting our neighbours on an open desert with no jetswe would lose as a result of their numbers... now if the numbers were even however... Our tanks would own em!
the f/a-18 international(swiss army knife) it can do everthing.if the u.s and adf goes w/ the new international 4.75 model w/ Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) conformal weapons pods, IRST and the Next Gen Cockpit,missile warning system,cft,(proposed for (MMRCA) is a great weapon especially in the u.s type of strike group,not a 1on1 fighter,because 1 plane does it all,taking place of many, U.S.A.F F-22 & f-15 NEEDS BETTER Thrust vector nozzle,irst, helmet mounted sight.,why no vectoring 4 f-15?
hate to say it but russian fighters have been ahead of the game for years. I remember the mig -29 giving the f-16 a flogging years ago? how embarrasing for the us.
@australianmade74 well you said that cock sucker, you said hate to say it but russian fighters have been ahead of the game for years. I remember the mig -29 giving the f-16 a flogging years ago? how embarrasing for the us. but. now you say who said war? it out maneuvers the f-16 in everyway. your a wanker mate
@az0921144 The thing is that Australia wants to keep the close alliance with America. If we bought a russian plane then that close alliance would be broken. Also i doubt that Russia would sell us one due to the alliance with America.
@gogogogoguck yeah I know that, but still if America was to go to war with Russia, which is not that likely, there would be a replay of Battle of Britain, we'd get massacred.
Yeah there is some misinformation, I work on F18E/F super hornets both Hi/low lot APG73 and APG79 versions. This jet is maintainer friendly for most part but there is alot to improve on. Things that need checked or adjusted could be in better locations to where you didn't have to remove 30 fasteners to change 4 dials. Overall the Hi lots /w APG79 are very reliable.
@MagicpotatoAus NEW? aircraft carriers? we havent got any at the moment full stop.... secondly why do we need aircraft carriers? we dont need a mobile squadron.... also its kinda like buying a carpark with 100 spaces for three cars? we do not have enough superhornets to fill a carrier and have on ground for defense? and thirdly we are not a offensive force!!!! Australian "DEFENCE" force...... aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and are mainly now just a show of force!
@Blandy086 i completely agree with you that the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete but coming from someone that served on HMAS Melbourne for 2 years i dont see why we dont need a light carrier if it wasnt for t Bob Hawke we would of had HMS Hermes sailing under the australian flag now
From the age of 8 I have dreamt of flying f-111s and F/A-18s in the RAAF, I have also recently picked my subjects for year 11 and twelve, im taking physics, geography, 2unit maths, ext english, economics and bussiness studies, which if im not mistaking, are the required NSW Education requirements (bar business, economics) to qualify for pilot school after undertaking officer training, I've heard from many recruiters that the average is 1 in 200 that make it to pilot school. ill never give up.
@YZach Actually the ADF is concerned of alot, we Australians are pretty lucky, we have excess land with natural resources and no real major natural disasters and our economy is doing quite well, countries north of us could see our way of life as unfair and feel the need to make us share..... the ADF has been preparing for this scenario for many years now.
@ameyzhere...I'm sure that the F-15 SE is very capable in performing it's duty. However, in the Australian culture of military aviation history, we have always attempted to purchase an aircraft that has a multifunctional capability along with low turnaround time with regarding maintenance. The F-15 has a longer turnaround time regarding rearming and electronic and mechanical repairing in comparison to the F-18. In addition, the ground crew are already familar with the classic hornet.
@deejay030473 And the shornet has much more future growth potentials as it is being operated by the US Navy. Australia can benefit from a parallel upgrade instead of spending money on independent upgrade. Boeing already shown off a stealthier shornet concept with conformal weapon pods and conformal fuel tanks, internal IRST, spherical missile warning, new cockpit. The shornet also has the possibility to be modified into the growler, which would give Australia a formidable electronic attack.
RAAF should have bought a customized version of the Strike Eagle (ex. the F-15I, F-15K, F-15SG) rather than the Super Hornet as the Strike Eagle is proven and more importantly the Super Hornet is just too slow to replace the F-111s.
@ameyzhere Too slow to replace F-111's? your joking right? F-111 was never a great airplane, it was adeqate. full of compromises imposed by politicians in it's design. the F/A-18E/F is far superior.
As far as I know, the F-111 was used by the RAAF as a tactical bomber and not as a fighter. A tactical bombers main objective is to go fast into enemy airspace, bomb targets and come back faster. The Super Hornet 's combat radius of 800 km and max speed of Mach 1.8 (F-111 combat radius: 2100km, max speed: mach 2.5) makes it no way a tactical bomber. The Super Hornet is a gr8 fighter no doubt, but it just cannot play the role of a deep strike aircraft/tactical bomber.
@ameyzhere You really do not know ur Aus Air force history FAG! We have had between 1960 - 2000, we have used aircraft such as: basic F-18 Hornet, Mirage 2000 and others! But ur right about one thing, they are very great aircraft, but the future f-35A's for the Aus air force will be beter
@j0noStrIk3r lol you dont know your history........ mirage 2000... we trialed them and kept a few but never used them! from world war 1 to now our history of Combat SERVICE aircraft is... sopwith pup, RAF SE.5A, Bristol Bulldog, Gloster Gauntlet, Gloster Gladiator, Hawker Demon, Boulton Paul Defiant, Curtiss Tomahawk, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, Brewster Buffalo, P-43 Lancer,................... many more but skipping to after WW2 Mirage 3, A-4, F-4, F-111, F/A 18, F/A 18 E-F.
@ameyzhere the F/A 18 E,F are actually designated as a STRIKE/FIGHTER and depending on its load out has varianing ranges 800km being the minimum max load out range... it can be stretched further and with external tanks can stretch right out to 2000km.... secondly apart from speed she is better all over than the F-111, i love the F-111 but honestly there maintenance costs were too high and she was becoming too out dated and was upgraded as much as possible. the superhornet at standard is better.
@ameyzhere thats what stand off missles are for,why put the pilot n plane in danger?You been reading to much Carlo Kopp and Air power Australia articles. And the F-111 may fly at Mach 2.5 with no weapons stores on it,bu it flies about the same speed as an F-18 super at mach 1 when loaded up.
@investornator Stand off missiles are well and good. But there is such a thing as point-defense systems such as Crotale, Tunguska, Pantsir and other. Unless you can completely saturate the air with stand off missiles, those systems will kill the incoming missiles.
@Spetsnazovets so point defence weapons will shoot down a stand off missiles ,what would they do to an
F-111s with the RCS the size of a small building? you make it sound like systems such as Tungsta,pantsir,crotale ect have a 100% strike percentage.......typical youtube babble...
@investornator Those systems use both missiles are guns. Since they use phased array engagement radars they can guide several missiles at several targets at once If there are 4-6 of them (which is about right) then it'd take a lot of stand off missiles per target. If missiles miss then guns get to work. Its not as easy as you think since the Tunguska and Pantsir were designed to intercept missiles that fly 4 times the speed of sound.
@investornator You are pathetic. Being incapable of facing proven facts you resort to simple deflection. The only person waffling here is you. If you can't maintain a decent conversation and use points to sustain you opinion don't enter a conversation.
@Spetsnazovets haha yeh mate good one ,im talking about the F-18 Supers and why they have replaced the
F-111,trying to explain to people that stand off missiles will replace the capability lost from the F-111 and your babling about.What Facts have have you bought to the table...?
@investornator the point was that SH doesn't have range OR speed that F-111 had. thats what you originally responded to. I nullified THAT comment. Hence SH CAN'T be a tactical bomber that F-111 was. Does it have payload like F-111? No it doesn't. Fighting at stand-off range is only possible against an enemy stick in 1980s with obsolete hardware. With the modern opponent that tactic is useless.
@Spetsnazovets and the point i was making is that the F-111 can fly at Mach 2.5 WITHOUT a WEAPONS LOAD,do you understand this?DO YOU.The F-111 time is up.the Super Hornet will be used as a package with AWACS,Arial Tanking,(hopefully Jamming).And now you say that Stand off weapons are only good at 1980s with obsolete hardware?Mate Stand off Missiles were made to destroy fixed targets,like AD systems,Bunkers/storage areas,depos,ect.BABBLE!
@investornator God. You are stuck in 60s then. Only obsolete places use static air defence systems. More and more they get rehosted onto tracked or wheeled self-propelled chassis.
"F-111 can fly at Mach 2.5 WITHOUT a WEAPONS LOAD" Hmmmm Thats not what I've been told by ex-air force engineers that maintained it.
As far as I know, the F-111 was used by the RAAF as a tactical bomber and not as a fighter. A tactical bombers main objective is to go fast into enemy airspace, bomb targets and come back faster. The Super Hornet 's combat radius of 800 km and max speed of Mach 1.8 (F-111 combat radius: 2100km, max speed: mach 2.5) makes it no way a tactical bomber. The Super Hornet is a gr8 fighter no doubt, but it just cannot play the role of a deep strike aircraft/tactical bomber.
@cherylz1 hmmmmmm say that to the SU-35..... there are quite a few superior jets to american made ones.... F-22 is america's best current match up and will still have to put up a good fight against Sukhoi and Eurofighter!
to slafkec: the reason the US navy choose to buy the super hornet and to upgrade the exisisting hornet rather then upgrading the f-14's is because the f-18s has newer technology and it was design to be upgraded with the latest technology with more flexibility then all the exisisting f-14, and yes due to this reason buying and upgrading the f-18's is much cheaper then upgrading the exisiting f-14's
why did the US navy chose to continue with the development of f-18 hornet, instead of updating and refining the F14 design?
was it maybe that, due to f14s variable wing configuration, they predicted that maintenance cost of upgraded f14 was greater when compared to the upgraded f18?
and all those talking about why not use the F-111s or F-15Es I'm pretty sure the Aussies looked at all the options/costs and picked what they find is the best match to there needs. The 18e/f does have LO where the eagle doesn't Plus better radar systems,
Thats right they did. My friend works on the hornets. He was sent to recieve the first of the super's. He says the f111 has still got talents over the hornet in terms of speed and range, but they are falling apart. eagles are old too. The hornet does a good job and is a big improvement over the old hornet.
@slickstrings whoa there buddy,sure the f-15 is getting old,but its newest upgrades includes a joint helmet mounted cueing systems n the new high off-boresight capable aim-9x,wit this new upgrades,f-15 can handle t-vectoring jets in a dogfight,f-18 superhornets av the same upgrades,the aussie superhornets will av a jhmcs also,but it will not carry the yanks aim-9x,the aussies will be armed wit the brits asraam,another great air to air missile,both jets still deadly in the next 20 yrs.
@fmoa Yeah but, u can upgrade the shit out of a jet and its still going to be a 30 year old airframe with limits. It wasnt designed with the future in mind & as my friends dad (who replaced the very last spare f18 wing quite a while ago) will testify, the costs of trying to keep an old jet flying beyond its intentions and hoping it will work isnt good enough. Look at the f111. great plane. Well beyond its use by date. The last mission it flew half the planes turned back with problems.
Really, what would seriously help the super hornet would be bringing back the AIM-54, maybe updating the seeker. Would make the super hornet a true super hero. Hell it might even take out a Raptor! I was amazed when I learned they weren't going to add the AIM-54 to the 18E/F
@macuss87 Aim 54 was never designed to hit fighter sized aircraft, it was designed to hit huge TU-95 bear & Badger bombers. a manuverable aircraft can easily evade the Pheonix. plus you just can't find the parts to maintain the Aim-54 anymore. it is 1960's electronics after all.
There was a report done by some war gamers that said an F-35 could be defeated by russian fighters by attacking the tanker support therefore the F-35s running out of gas. That can be said about any modern air refueled fighter. So the aussies got a more indepth briefing and figured out the report was mostly BS.
@macuss87 the report was kinda bullshit,it claims russia n chinese jets easily beat f-35's by denying f-35 tanker support,which means russia n china will shoot down u.s or nato aerial tankers to stop f-35 from getting gas,now if you do the math,who would fly tanker in a combat zone,if the chinese or russia try a surprise attack,it wont happen coz there are awacs that scan the skies n combat fighters to support both the tanker n the awac,the rand sim was very anti-f-35,which makes it even shit.
@fmoa Thanks for the backup info you summed it up much better, than i did. The whole idea is dumb. The only ariel tankers going into a combat zone would be super hornets with a buddy system attached, and they can fight back, or at least run away.
@fmoa The Russian or Chinese cant shoot down the tankers because the f-35 will shoot the russian made jets down before they get of a shot. Or jam the missile.
@N1cholas240 c'mon everyone needs to realise one thing... the SU-35 will kill anything, it will even hunt down raptors.... everyone thinks coz its operated by the chinese and russians that its a shit throw together, read up on it... it can do some scary shit... and the JSF - 35 what a joke.... yay it can hover.... but thanks to this feature it is a slow aircraft and if it needed to run would be hunted down easily E/F hornet is a better choice compared to JSF
@Blandy086 The whole concept of air to air combat is BVR not dogfighting like you seem to think.
The real wolrd will have a stealth f-35 with aim-120d missiles, and AESA radar to pick out a su-35 and fire the missile at below a max range the chance for a su-35 dodging it is very low. The only cool shit a su-35 can do is turn but a su-35 4th gen up against a 5th gen f-35 with stealth, AESA radar and aim-120d missiles is how fights are done today.
@bunny153649 F-35 will win because f-35 has a lower RCS. The pak fa has L-band radars but they aren't accurate so they will track the f-35 first but cant fire while the f-35 can track it at about 60km with its radar and can fire at the pak fa because its X-band radar can see the pak fa before the pak fa x-band radar can see the f-35 and the f-35 can get first shot first kill.
So the pak fa will get first look but f-35 still has first shot first kill. Ill explain it more if u want.
@blakeblake321 you sure he said that, because my uncle seems to think that the JSF -35 was a bucket of shit.... lets have a strike fighter that is slow.... and can hover....WHY DOES A STRIKE FIGHTER NEED TO HOVER? yeah i can understand vertical takeoff but it was designed to come from flight into a hover and use weapons.... there are already these things that can do that they're called helicopters! my uncle works at Amberley and misses the F-111's but thinks the E,F hornet was the best choice!
I think the Superhornet has the capability Australia needs for air to air work, given current potential threats. I think as a replacement for the F-111 its going to fall very short in key areas. The F-111 is an extremely fast aircraft at low level (and high level for that matter) with a huge range (relative to the superhornet) and much higher bomb load capacity. It out performed some of the slicker newer strike fighters in Gulf War I despite its age.
@Ironwulf2000 Because the USAF doesnt operate this aircraft any more, its hard to get parts and support for, so I can understand the need to replace it. but, why not look to get some heavily refurbished F-15Es? They have the balls, the range, the speed, the terrain following capability and the more modern electronics, and i bet once its dropped its bombs it can turn with the best of them, or have the legs to escape at high speed.
However, the truth is, the F111 fleet could be kept going for a LONG time yet. We have access to all the F111s sitting in the 'boneyard' is the Nevada (is it) desert, and we have been sourcing spares from there for a long time.
From what I have read from Karlo Copp, it would be easy to manufacture any parts that could not be sourced from these aircraft...
I agree with everything you posted. F-15E's would have been a far better choice. Especially with GE F110-290 engines. You're talking a very serious aircraft with virtually no engine restrictions and once free of it's bomb load becomes an F-15 Air to Air fighter on steroids. The Super Slug has far too much drag and doesn't come close to energy retention that the F-15 does. That F-15 design is just superb at maintaining energy in a turn. I'd rather take on an Su-27/30 in an F-15E vs. F-18E
However, the Super Hornet will require much less maintaince (for every 1 hour of F-111 flight, it requires 180 hours of maintaince), while the F-111 was extremely expensive to run. The Super Hornet is a fair more advance aircraft, and has a great muliti role capability. The F-111 was a good aircraft, however the Super Hornet will be of more use to the RAAF.
Regardless, my comment wasnt that we should retain the F-111, although in my belief it has benefits that outweigh its drawbacks, it was that there were more capable, battle proven 'interim' aircraft available that MUCH MORE CLOSELY match the F-111s capabilities.
But, why not have both? The Superhornet would make an excellent close air support and battlefield interdiction aircraft. Retain the F-111 for the long range strike role- for which it (still) excels.
@Ironwulf2000 couldn't agree more with you man...they should still keep some of the f 111's n use others for spares or something because the hornet is no direct replacement. Having said that the f35 is no direct replacement either
5:14 sound effect in battlefield 3 when getting locked on
R0B0T1CxFILMAKER 1 week ago
Comment removed
R0B0T1CxFILMAKER 1 week ago
This thing flies like it has thrust vectoring!!!!! Imagine if it did. #ONE NASTY PLANE. I LOVE MY AMERICAN PLANES
POPJack1717 1 month ago
What countries are planning on buying these jet fighters?
TheAntiMoral 1 month ago
How many times do you people have to be told - YF23 Black Widow - OPEN YOUR EYES - f22 was the cheaper option. Australia should have gone to Northrop direct.
erenite31 1 month ago
Everyone always just talks about the planes, but it's the man (or woman for that matter) flying it that really matters. F/A-18 vs. Su-35 when the Hornet pilot has 10x the hours in training, I'll bet the Hornet wins eight or nine out of ten times.
Nater245689 1 month ago
why is everyone talking about f-22s the RAAF is getting f-35s
RoyalAviator 2 months ago
F-22 is 275 million each for another order.
FunnyVideoCollector 2 months ago
The F-22 production was canceled it was far to expensive to build more and nearly half are always grounded for a new coating.
FunnyVideoCollector 2 months ago
Super hornet vastely inderrated, aesa radar and very easy to fly, extremely dangerous. All it needs is a ramjet powered bvr weapon (coming soon)
MrCalman65 2 months ago
Congrats!!! Aussi's!!! Wait until you see the F22 Raptor :)
MoFoMatricks 2 months ago
The U.S. does not sell F-22s to any foreign country.
timreinhart 3 months ago 3
@timreinhart im preatty sure usa whoud sell the f22 to australia since we are close aliases for over 60 years!
MushRoom791 2 months ago
Why are we getting a F-18 Super Hornet when we can get a F-22 Raptor?
megatox100 3 months ago
@megatox100 Super Hornet was built for the US Navy esp. for aircraft carriers. A naval version of the F-22 is too expensive so the SH is the fill in gap until the F-35C go into operational service for the Navy.
RichKilla86ers 2 months ago
@RichKilla86ers do you know how much the SH and the F-22 Cost ?
megatox100 2 months ago
@megatox100
SH: $55 m
F-22: $150 m
F-35C: $139.5 m
RichKilla86ers 2 months ago
@RichKilla86ers 0_0
wow thanks just 1 question how do you know all these facts ?
megatox100 2 months ago
Comment removed
RichKilla86ers 2 months ago
@megatox100 LoL
Google & Wikipedia
RichKilla86ers 2 months ago
Rejected by India in mmrca over rafale and eurofighter.
MrAbhishekricky 3 months ago
@MrAbhishekricky the performance to dollar ratio is incomparable..if they have money to spend on a fighter almost half as much then its all their decision.super hornet is still one of the best multi role out there.
Gogies777 3 months ago
It's funny, because the F/A 18 Super Hornet was made for the USA.
GZxModzz 3 months ago
Now I'm logged in correctly...
Tim Reinhart, Video Producer, The Boeing Company
timreinhart 4 months ago
Opps.... the "iLoveCheerleading51" is my daughters YouTube name!
iLoveCheerleading51 4 months ago
I'm the producer / editor of this video... also shot a lot of the air-to-air footage in the Super Hornet. The F/A-18 and F-15 fighter jets were origionally built by McDonnell Douglas, which merged with Boeing in the late-90s... so now Boeing proudly builds them here in St. Louis, Missouri.
iLoveCheerleading51 4 months ago
boeing makes fighter jets?......thats new
schm147 4 months ago
@schm147 and Apache heli too ))
mirtaet123 4 months ago
F18E is just a stopgap eh? 5th gen is waiting in the wings, maybe Australia should start developing the tech herself, the world is changing rapidly..
PICLex 5 months ago
Interesting times in the world. F18E imo is just a stopgap until we get genuine 5t gen fighters. But by then i think the world will be a different place. Australia i only hope you invest in developing the tech yourself, and not rely on any one else for finished products.
PICLex 5 months ago
*Excellent! Definately tax dollars "well" spent*
BENY881 5 months ago
Excellent! Definately tax dollars spent on our nation's defence for once. But useless without highly trained RAAF pilot's with who'w the greatest investment lie's. I for one would have absolute faith in them.
BENY881 5 months ago
It sure would be awesome if Australia made an aircraft carrier for their Super Hornets. I can see a carrier being kind of useful in that part of the world.
kwmkc13 6 months ago
@kwmkc13 Its not neccasary.
assmotrone43 5 months ago
Super Hornet is NOT a new generation. Its same as Su-35BM. Gen4++ except slower, lower range, less agile and unable to supercruise. Basically enlarged Hornet with bigger range. I'd choose an F-14 over hornet and deeply upgrade F-14 rather then slower lower range platform. Hornet was a folly. They should have made new-build F-14s.
Spetsnazovets 6 months ago
@bigfootmtb ;D
rockmanpunkman 7 months ago
cant wait till the raaf gets the f-35s ;D
rockmanpunkman 7 months ago
Nice advert. But doesn't answer a fundamental question. Being much less maneuverable, non-stealth, slower,, with lower T/W how is it supposed to compete with Su-30MK? Even with PESA radar, it beats Super Hornet in every way. F-15 already beats Super Hornet and loses to Su-30MK so why buy an inferior machine? The EW suites are on par but Flanker carries IRST for stealthy ground-controlled intercept from behind. Shouldn't have bought them. F-15SE with IRST should have been purchased
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets The SH has a low RCS witch su-30mk lacks and has a AESA radar witch the su-30 lacks plus the SH has the new aim-120D missiles, With these 3 things gives the SH a BVR advantage over the su-30mk. The only advantage the su-30 has is its maneuverability, But the SH has the BVR advantage so it will win. Simple the SH will kill the su-30 before the SH gets in to the close dogfight. The f-18 SH is getting a IRST under the gun pod of the jet soon.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
Su-30MKI has R-27ET/EP/ER with range longer then AIM-120D
Both feature highly accurate radars with phased arrays with detection ranges far in excess of missile range which actually gives Su-30MK advantage thanks to R-27ER/ET/EP superior flight range.
Does SH have ESA DRFM jammers specifically made to defeat AMRAAM mono-pulse seeker? No. Flanker comes standard with it. And jammers ESAs point both back and forward. simple upgrade to AL-31F-M1/M2 and Su gets supercruise. Got more questions?
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets Your precious SU-30's got their asses handed to them by the poms in their Typhoons just recently.
aussiepride2005 6 months ago 9
@aussiepride2005 LOL That was a rather late reversal of the previous positions where English pilots openly admitted that they lost to Su-30MKI hands down. Taken a little long to make that public don't you think? Word is long out. Can't deny months afterwards. I read that article. Was a joke and a half. Just like the yanks claimed to have won the red flag when they were comprehensively beaten.
Spetsnazovets 6 months ago
@aussiepride2005 He meant su 35bm not su 30
0107632928 5 months ago
@N1cholas240 Also the RCS you mentioned, its still sufficiently high to spot SH at distances beyond missile range of both fighters. You seem to thing that "lowered RCS" claim means that its as low as that of F-22. Not so. And will never be. Radars are powerful and accurate enough these days, whether PESA or AESA, to see at much further and much more accurately then before. SH still has enough rounded and curved shapes to return radar pulses well enough for long range detection.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
I know the difference between low RCS and stealth. the r-27er range is 130km the r-27et range is 120km and the aim-120d range is about 200km plus they have dual pulse mortar witch the r-27 lacks.
The DRFM jammer cant jam the new monopulse radar in the amraam D version because it has polarization in the signal, The polarization was made as a response to counter DRFM jammer. plus the AMRAAM seeker goes active at 20 km it takes only 10 seconds for the mach4 missile to reach the mach2 jet.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
@N1cholas240 Maneuverability of amraam is still insufficient to down a well-flow fighter. MiG-29 with no ECM avoided 3 of them. AMRAAM with 56% effectiveness against targets achieved WITHOUT mass ECM will fail A LOT in heavy ECM environment.
ECCM are part of every missile setup but you are missing that once datalink to AMRAAM is jammed its then blind. Also jammers have vastly more power then seeker
AFAIK the 200km AMRAAM is not yet in service either.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets The aim-120D went in to service this year. The USAF received 95 of them early this year. And you cant jam a data link because the AESA radar witch cant be detected or jammed is datalinking the amraam. Also the aim-120 maunverbility is unkown but reliable sources claim 40g. And when did a mig-29 dodge a aim-120???. In kosovo the aim-120 shot down mig-29s with no problem and that was the older amraam the A and B models. Aim-120c has a 90% KP and the new D has higher then 90% KP.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
@N1cholas240 Combat record of AMRAAM is 60% tops. Fact.
Please give me a link to the 200km amraam. Without a ramjet engine it'll never reach that range. Even latest MBDA Meteor has 180km tops
LOW probability of intercept, NOT ZERO probability. Link can't be LPI or missile will not pick it up. Laws of physics are same for everyone hence stuff can be or is made to counter LPI. There is LPI radar. Not link.
After seeing your profile this was a waste of time. Bye.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets Their are many links claming that the aim-120 has a 200km range, and you dont need ramjet for that type of range. And a AESA is LPI so i dont know how you think its signal its sending to the missile is not LPI. Send me a link that claims the LPI is not happing when sending a link. I know AESA can stay LPI when sending a link , The only time AESA is not LPI is if it illuminates a target for a long time or starts jamming This is not LPI. You also know the radar is sending the link.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
We should buy more of these... replace our regular hornets with em, and as BRILLIANT as they are. Ditch the f-35 and work with the US and be the second nation after the US to get 6th generation planes. (F/A-XX)
Kirkzzy 9 months ago
@Kirkzzy I doubt the f/a-xx will be sold to other countries.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
@N1cholas240 Boeing offered it to Australia as a way of selling more super hornets and then said we can get the F/A-XX as there replacement.
Kirkzzy 8 months ago
@Kirkzzy show me your source that claims that. Because i havent found anything that said that. And i think your getting the f/a-xx confused with the f-35.
N1cholas240 8 months ago
@N1cholas240 No I'm not. I never suggested this as the F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin. I got a link but it won't let me post here. I'll send you it in a pm.
Kirkzzy 8 months ago
9 people are new zealanders :P
lucky540er 9 months ago
@lucky540er You are 100% correct. I am jealous! You could just fly into NZ Airspace and do whatever you want and all we could do is send a Cessna up with a passenger and a handgun. Thats if the lefties don't suceed in banning those aswell. I guess paying out the benefits to the 1 in 4 Kiwis on one is more important than the ability to protect our Liberty; but whats the point when we are destroying that ourselves. Honestly; we feel castrated and cheated as a nation.
ginjaninja1988 8 months ago 5
@kcaj123456 hahahaha douche, defence forces are governed by less rules...... p.s Australia isnt about numbers, its about performance, yeah many armies may have numbers but lets look at their results.... no point measuring dicks.... whats so good about a big swinging dick that cant do the job properly.
The ADF has helped alot of U.S soldiers and if i remember correctly it was Australian S.A.S that saved the lives of the downed Blackhawk crew from a mountain away!
Blandy086 9 months ago
@Blandy086 Actually a better way to put it.. Australia makes up for its small amount of infantry numbers (which most of our neighbours rely on.. and is partly why we still are ahead of them) we make up for in numbers in our air force and navy... hence why we still have air and naval superiority over our neighbours. Now if we were fighting our neighbours on an open desert with no jetswe would lose as a result of their numbers... now if the numbers were even however... Our tanks would own em!
Kirkzzy 9 months ago
the f/a-18 international(swiss army knife) it can do everthing.if the u.s and adf goes w/ the new international 4.75 model w/ Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) conformal weapons pods, IRST and the Next Gen Cockpit,missile warning system,cft,(proposed for (MMRCA) is a great weapon especially in the u.s type of strike group,not a 1on1 fighter,because 1 plane does it all,taking place of many, U.S.A.F F-22 & f-15 NEEDS BETTER Thrust vector nozzle,irst, helmet mounted sight.,why no vectoring 4 f-15?
hotrod4you2 9 months ago
hate to say it but russian fighters have been ahead of the game for years. I remember the mig -29 giving the f-16 a flogging years ago? how embarrasing for the us.
australianmade74 10 months ago
@australianmade74
mig-29 giving the f-16 a flogging years ago?
when did that happen?
the mig 29 have been destroyed time and time again by the f-15 and f-16 in war after war.
stop making up false claims
TheProjektcc 10 months ago
@TheProjektcc american pilots admitted it on tv that the migs could out do the f-16 in every way.
australianmade74 10 months ago
@australianmade74 No shit. But it won't beat the F/A-18.
djjosh34445 9 months ago
@TheProjektcc zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz you know very little about these two planes....sorry chum!
australianmade74 10 months ago
@australianmade74 in what war did a mig 29 beat americn f-16 ? your full off shit
caylon31 10 months ago
@caylon31 who said war? it out maneuvers the f-16 in everyway, but i'm sure your an expert in your own lunchtime so talk it up fag boy.
australianmade74 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@australianmade74 well you said that cock sucker, you said hate to say it but russian fighters have been ahead of the game for years. I remember the mig -29 giving the f-16 a flogging years ago? how embarrasing for the us. but. now you say who said war? it out maneuvers the f-16 in everyway. your a wanker mate
caylon31 10 months ago
@caylon31 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
australianmade74 10 months ago
@australianmade74 your some kid, stay in school dip shit and stay of youtube
caylon31 9 months ago
@caylon31 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz you know so much about so little! good for you.
australianmade74 9 months ago
@australianmade74 you know nothing at all mr mig 29 hehe
caylon31 9 months ago
@caylon31 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
australianmade74 9 months ago
@caylon31 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
australianmade74 9 months ago
@caylon31 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
australianmade74 9 months ago
オーストラリア空軍も強そうだね
lillimeg0825 11 months ago
i like this plane
qqpol 11 months ago
so cool
qqpol 11 months ago
Compared to Russian fighter's, there cheaper, there better, has the same tech equipment, and incredibly more agile. retarded, corrupt, politicians
az0921144 11 months ago
@az0921144 The thing is that Australia wants to keep the close alliance with America. If we bought a russian plane then that close alliance would be broken. Also i doubt that Russia would sell us one due to the alliance with America.
gogogogoguck 11 months ago
@gogogogoguck yeah I know that, but still if America was to go to war with Russia, which is not that likely, there would be a replay of Battle of Britain, we'd get massacred.
az0921144 11 months ago
@az0921144 lol go back to school
caylon31 10 months ago
@caylon31 why?
az0921144 9 months ago
Yeah there is some misinformation, I work on F18E/F super hornets both Hi/low lot APG73 and APG79 versions. This jet is maintainer friendly for most part but there is alot to improve on. Things that need checked or adjusted could be in better locations to where you didn't have to remove 30 fasteners to change 4 dials. Overall the Hi lots /w APG79 are very reliable.
mikeallensonntag 1 year ago
f-18 super hornet made Brazil
filadaputaotario 1 year ago
Why are they talking about Australia and using clips from the US. The Crew has American uniforms on?
fryking22 1 year ago
Super Hornet. Has the "WOW" Factor.
cherylz1 1 year ago
The F1-11 is fine for our role at the moment we dont need to replace it we need better fighters and we need new fucking aircraft carriers
MagicpotatoAus 1 year ago
@MagicpotatoAus NEW? aircraft carriers? we havent got any at the moment full stop.... secondly why do we need aircraft carriers? we dont need a mobile squadron.... also its kinda like buying a carpark with 100 spaces for three cars? we do not have enough superhornets to fill a carrier and have on ground for defense? and thirdly we are not a offensive force!!!! Australian "DEFENCE" force...... aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and are mainly now just a show of force!
Blandy086 1 year ago
@Blandy086 i completely agree with you that the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete but coming from someone that served on HMAS Melbourne for 2 years i dont see why we dont need a light carrier if it wasnt for t Bob Hawke we would of had HMS Hermes sailing under the australian flag now
MagicpotatoAus 1 year ago
@kcaj123456 Neithers insurance, untill your house burns down.
anurism1 1 year ago
This aircraft is a compromise and you guys bought the turd.LMAO
SuperJoseph150 1 year ago
@SuperJoseph150 like the legacy hornet was? That turned out to be a total turd huh? Only three decades of flawless service.
anurism1 1 year ago
Who is the Negro women ??? wearing the plastic safety glasses .the Boeing sales REP women....What a joke........
fredfungalspore 1 year ago
when it come to security they are only soso for Earthly Vessels.when a pilot can experience 20+ Gs then talk to me
fredfungalspore 1 year ago
From the age of 8 I have dreamt of flying f-111s and F/A-18s in the RAAF, I have also recently picked my subjects for year 11 and twelve, im taking physics, geography, 2unit maths, ext english, economics and bussiness studies, which if im not mistaking, are the required NSW Education requirements (bar business, economics) to qualify for pilot school after undertaking officer training, I've heard from many recruiters that the average is 1 in 200 that make it to pilot school. ill never give up.
skippyskater 1 year ago
@kcaj123456 Haha, good point.
YZach 1 year ago
Why does Australia need the F model? What adversaries do they actually foresee?
YZach 1 year ago
@YZach Better to have and not need than need and not have.
NigelGriff 1 year ago
@YZach Actually the ADF is concerned of alot, we Australians are pretty lucky, we have excess land with natural resources and no real major natural disasters and our economy is doing quite well, countries north of us could see our way of life as unfair and feel the need to make us share..... the ADF has been preparing for this scenario for many years now.
Blandy086 9 months ago
helmet fire, anyone? takes a special person to fly one of these birds effectively.
amh1230 1 year ago
Canadian Airforce uses these but where buying F-35's now
PcGamerPaul 1 year ago
good choice by the RAAF
Vermen1 1 year ago
@ameyzhere...I'm sure that the F-15 SE is very capable in performing it's duty. However, in the Australian culture of military aviation history, we have always attempted to purchase an aircraft that has a multifunctional capability along with low turnaround time with regarding maintenance. The F-15 has a longer turnaround time regarding rearming and electronic and mechanical repairing in comparison to the F-18. In addition, the ground crew are already familar with the classic hornet.
deejay030473 1 year ago
@deejay030473 And the shornet has much more future growth potentials as it is being operated by the US Navy. Australia can benefit from a parallel upgrade instead of spending money on independent upgrade. Boeing already shown off a stealthier shornet concept with conformal weapon pods and conformal fuel tanks, internal IRST, spherical missile warning, new cockpit. The shornet also has the possibility to be modified into the growler, which would give Australia a formidable electronic attack.
twinoceans 1 year ago
i think super hornet F18 looks best with blue angels design
blue color +F18= <3
SelfmadeHacks 1 year ago
RAAF should have bought a customized version of the Strike Eagle (ex. the F-15I, F-15K, F-15SG) rather than the Super Hornet as the Strike Eagle is proven and more importantly the Super Hornet is just too slow to replace the F-111s.
ameyzhere 1 year ago
@ameyzhere Too slow to replace F-111's? your joking right? F-111 was never a great airplane, it was adeqate. full of compromises imposed by politicians in it's design. the F/A-18E/F is far superior.
kdraper2007 1 year ago
@kdraper2007
As far as I know, the F-111 was used by the RAAF as a tactical bomber and not as a fighter. A tactical bombers main objective is to go fast into enemy airspace, bomb targets and come back faster. The Super Hornet 's combat radius of 800 km and max speed of Mach 1.8 (F-111 combat radius: 2100km, max speed: mach 2.5) makes it no way a tactical bomber. The Super Hornet is a gr8 fighter no doubt, but it just cannot play the role of a deep strike aircraft/tactical bomber.
ameyzhere 1 year ago 4
@ameyzhere Were relying to heavily on tankers now.
SkullKing11841 1 year ago
@ameyzhere You really do not know ur Aus Air force history FAG! We have had between 1960 - 2000, we have used aircraft such as: basic F-18 Hornet, Mirage 2000 and others! But ur right about one thing, they are very great aircraft, but the future f-35A's for the Aus air force will be beter
j0noStrIk3r 1 year ago
@j0noStrIk3r lol you dont know your history........ mirage 2000... we trialed them and kept a few but never used them! from world war 1 to now our history of Combat SERVICE aircraft is... sopwith pup, RAF SE.5A, Bristol Bulldog, Gloster Gauntlet, Gloster Gladiator, Hawker Demon, Boulton Paul Defiant, Curtiss Tomahawk, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, Brewster Buffalo, P-43 Lancer,................... many more but skipping to after WW2 Mirage 3, A-4, F-4, F-111, F/A 18, F/A 18 E-F.
Blandy086 1 year ago
@ameyzhere Pay more get more
NWguy83 1 year ago
@ameyzhere the F/A 18 E,F are actually designated as a STRIKE/FIGHTER and depending on its load out has varianing ranges 800km being the minimum max load out range... it can be stretched further and with external tanks can stretch right out to 2000km.... secondly apart from speed she is better all over than the F-111, i love the F-111 but honestly there maintenance costs were too high and she was becoming too out dated and was upgraded as much as possible. the superhornet at standard is better.
Blandy086 1 year ago
@ameyzhere thats what stand off missles are for,why put the pilot n plane in danger?You been reading to much Carlo Kopp and Air power Australia articles. And the F-111 may fly at Mach 2.5 with no weapons stores on it,bu it flies about the same speed as an F-18 super at mach 1 when loaded up.
Regards
investornator 8 months ago
@investornator Stand off missiles are well and good. But there is such a thing as point-defense systems such as Crotale, Tunguska, Pantsir and other. Unless you can completely saturate the air with stand off missiles, those systems will kill the incoming missiles.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets so point defence weapons will shoot down a stand off missiles ,what would they do to an
F-111s with the RCS the size of a small building? you make it sound like systems such as Tungsta,pantsir,crotale ect have a 100% strike percentage.......typical youtube babble...
investornator 8 months ago
@investornator Those systems use both missiles are guns. Since they use phased array engagement radars they can guide several missiles at several targets at once If there are 4-6 of them (which is about right) then it'd take a lot of stand off missiles per target. If missiles miss then guns get to work. Its not as easy as you think since the Tunguska and Pantsir were designed to intercept missiles that fly 4 times the speed of sound.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets keep waffling
investornator 8 months ago
@investornator You are pathetic. Being incapable of facing proven facts you resort to simple deflection. The only person waffling here is you. If you can't maintain a decent conversation and use points to sustain you opinion don't enter a conversation.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets haha yeh mate good one ,im talking about the F-18 Supers and why they have replaced the
F-111,trying to explain to people that stand off missiles will replace the capability lost from the F-111 and your babling about.What Facts have have you bought to the table...?
investornator 8 months ago
@investornator the point was that SH doesn't have range OR speed that F-111 had. thats what you originally responded to. I nullified THAT comment. Hence SH CAN'T be a tactical bomber that F-111 was. Does it have payload like F-111? No it doesn't. Fighting at stand-off range is only possible against an enemy stick in 1980s with obsolete hardware. With the modern opponent that tactic is useless.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
@Spetsnazovets and the point i was making is that the F-111 can fly at Mach 2.5 WITHOUT a WEAPONS LOAD,do you understand this?DO YOU.The F-111 time is up.the Super Hornet will be used as a package with AWACS,Arial Tanking,(hopefully Jamming).And now you say that Stand off weapons are only good at 1980s with obsolete hardware?Mate Stand off Missiles were made to destroy fixed targets,like AD systems,Bunkers/storage areas,depos,ect.BABBLE!
investornator 8 months ago
@investornator God. You are stuck in 60s then. Only obsolete places use static air defence systems. More and more they get rehosted onto tracked or wheeled self-propelled chassis.
"F-111 can fly at Mach 2.5 WITHOUT a WEAPONS LOAD" Hmmmm Thats not what I've been told by ex-air force engineers that maintained it.
Spetsnazovets 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kdraper2007
As far as I know, the F-111 was used by the RAAF as a tactical bomber and not as a fighter. A tactical bombers main objective is to go fast into enemy airspace, bomb targets and come back faster. The Super Hornet 's combat radius of 800 km and max speed of Mach 1.8 (F-111 combat radius: 2100km, max speed: mach 2.5) makes it no way a tactical bomber. The Super Hornet is a gr8 fighter no doubt, but it just cannot play the role of a deep strike aircraft/tactical bomber.
ameyzhere 1 year ago
F-18 Super is one Bad Ass Fighter jet. Hard to beat. US Air Power is just too AWESOME!!!!
cherylz1 1 year ago 13
@cherylz1 hmmmmmm say that to the SU-35..... there are quite a few superior jets to american made ones.... F-22 is america's best current match up and will still have to put up a good fight against Sukhoi and Eurofighter!
Blandy086 1 year ago
@Blandy086 Youʻre old news. I used to debate what youʻre talking about 3 yrs ago. F-22 and F-35 is even more ahead of the game. have a great year.
cherylz1 1 year ago
@cherylz1 neither one can fulfil australias needs though, which is why after alot of thought the ADF chose the Super hornet.
Blandy086 9 months ago
Super Hornet for the RAAF....couldnt find a better home or pilots!!!
gizzyG35 1 year ago
i love the F/A-18 Super Hornet wooooooooooooo
daniel360190291 1 year ago
lol
den19902 1 year ago
to slafkec: the reason the US navy choose to buy the super hornet and to upgrade the exisisting hornet rather then upgrading the f-14's is because the f-18s has newer technology and it was design to be upgraded with the latest technology with more flexibility then all the exisisting f-14, and yes due to this reason buying and upgrading the f-18's is much cheaper then upgrading the exisiting f-14's
michael747400 1 year ago
why did the US navy chose to continue with the development of f-18 hornet, instead of updating and refining the F14 design?
was it maybe that, due to f14s variable wing configuration, they predicted that maintenance cost of upgraded f14 was greater when compared to the upgraded f18?
slafkec 1 year ago
The superhornet is sexeeeeee
AltAirPilot517 1 year ago
damn jet, its beautiful masterpiece
mimimishima 1 year ago
Check out F18's blue angelsin san francisco
djsal510 1 year ago
and all those talking about why not use the F-111s or F-15Es I'm pretty sure the Aussies looked at all the options/costs and picked what they find is the best match to there needs. The 18e/f does have LO where the eagle doesn't Plus better radar systems,
macuss87 1 year ago
Thats right they did. My friend works on the hornets. He was sent to recieve the first of the super's. He says the f111 has still got talents over the hornet in terms of speed and range, but they are falling apart. eagles are old too. The hornet does a good job and is a big improvement over the old hornet.
slickstrings 1 year ago
@slickstrings whoa there buddy,sure the f-15 is getting old,but its newest upgrades includes a joint helmet mounted cueing systems n the new high off-boresight capable aim-9x,wit this new upgrades,f-15 can handle t-vectoring jets in a dogfight,f-18 superhornets av the same upgrades,the aussie superhornets will av a jhmcs also,but it will not carry the yanks aim-9x,the aussies will be armed wit the brits asraam,another great air to air missile,both jets still deadly in the next 20 yrs.
fmoa 1 year ago
@fmoa Yeah but, u can upgrade the shit out of a jet and its still going to be a 30 year old airframe with limits. It wasnt designed with the future in mind & as my friends dad (who replaced the very last spare f18 wing quite a while ago) will testify, the costs of trying to keep an old jet flying beyond its intentions and hoping it will work isnt good enough. Look at the f111. great plane. Well beyond its use by date. The last mission it flew half the planes turned back with problems.
slickstrings 1 year ago
Really, what would seriously help the super hornet would be bringing back the AIM-54, maybe updating the seeker. Would make the super hornet a true super hero. Hell it might even take out a Raptor! I was amazed when I learned they weren't going to add the AIM-54 to the 18E/F
macuss87 1 year ago
@macuss87 Aim 54 was never designed to hit fighter sized aircraft, it was designed to hit huge TU-95 bear & Badger bombers. a manuverable aircraft can easily evade the Pheonix. plus you just can't find the parts to maintain the Aim-54 anymore. it is 1960's electronics after all.
kdraper2007 1 year ago
Yes i know the APG-81 is developed from the APG-77 but i wouldnt say its the same.
TuAFFalcon 1 year ago
I heard that the RAAF did not want the
F-35 because they claim it is inferior to the SU-27/30. Is this true?
WakeboardStud28 1 year ago
No they did not claim that, some arm chair "experts" said it was inferior.
1ohtaf1 1 year ago
There was a report done by some war gamers that said an F-35 could be defeated by russian fighters by attacking the tanker support therefore the F-35s running out of gas. That can be said about any modern air refueled fighter. So the aussies got a more indepth briefing and figured out the report was mostly BS.
macuss87 1 year ago
@macuss87 the report was kinda bullshit,it claims russia n chinese jets easily beat f-35's by denying f-35 tanker support,which means russia n china will shoot down u.s or nato aerial tankers to stop f-35 from getting gas,now if you do the math,who would fly tanker in a combat zone,if the chinese or russia try a surprise attack,it wont happen coz there are awacs that scan the skies n combat fighters to support both the tanker n the awac,the rand sim was very anti-f-35,which makes it even shit.
fmoa 1 year ago
@fmoa Thanks for the backup info you summed it up much better, than i did. The whole idea is dumb. The only ariel tankers going into a combat zone would be super hornets with a buddy system attached, and they can fight back, or at least run away.
macuss87 1 year ago
@fmoa The Russian or Chinese cant shoot down the tankers because the f-35 will shoot the russian made jets down before they get of a shot. Or jam the missile.
N1cholas240 1 year ago
@N1cholas240 c'mon everyone needs to realise one thing... the SU-35 will kill anything, it will even hunt down raptors.... everyone thinks coz its operated by the chinese and russians that its a shit throw together, read up on it... it can do some scary shit... and the JSF - 35 what a joke.... yay it can hover.... but thanks to this feature it is a slow aircraft and if it needed to run would be hunted down easily E/F hornet is a better choice compared to JSF
Blandy086 1 year ago
@Blandy086 The whole concept of air to air combat is BVR not dogfighting like you seem to think.
The real wolrd will have a stealth f-35 with aim-120d missiles, and AESA radar to pick out a su-35 and fire the missile at below a max range the chance for a su-35 dodging it is very low. The only cool shit a su-35 can do is turn but a su-35 4th gen up against a 5th gen f-35 with stealth, AESA radar and aim-120d missiles is how fights are done today.
N1cholas240 1 year ago
@N1cholas240 what's the PK of an aim-120d v. Su-35 with a kinetic advantage? (adv. to the aim that is!).
hdmccart 1 year ago
@hdmccart If the aim-120d is fired below max range, high altitude, high speed, head on, The missile has a very high chance of killing the su-35.
N1cholas240 1 year ago
@N1cholas240 how do you think will f-35 go against PAK-FA?
bunny153649 1 year ago
@bunny153649 F-35 will win because f-35 has a lower RCS. The pak fa has L-band radars but they aren't accurate so they will track the f-35 first but cant fire while the f-35 can track it at about 60km with its radar and can fire at the pak fa because its X-band radar can see the pak fa before the pak fa x-band radar can see the f-35 and the f-35 can get first shot first kill.
So the pak fa will get first look but f-35 still has first shot first kill. Ill explain it more if u want.
N1cholas240 1 year ago
@N1cholas240 I agree, too bad the RAAF is only purchasing 100 of them at the start of 2016 and later onwards
j0noStrIk3r 1 year ago
@Blandy086 It can hunt down the Raptors but the Raptor would kill it before it could even see it.
djjosh34445 9 months ago
What about a comparison between F18 and
F35?????
uboot1967 2 years ago
The F-35 is basically better in everyway. I was speaking to a RAAF Aeronatutical Engineer and he said that
blakeblake321 2 years ago
@blakeblake321 you sure he said that, because my uncle seems to think that the JSF -35 was a bucket of shit.... lets have a strike fighter that is slow.... and can hover....WHY DOES A STRIKE FIGHTER NEED TO HOVER? yeah i can understand vertical takeoff but it was designed to come from flight into a hover and use weapons.... there are already these things that can do that they're called helicopters! my uncle works at Amberley and misses the F-111's but thinks the E,F hornet was the best choice!
Blandy086 1 year ago
I think the Superhornet has the capability Australia needs for air to air work, given current potential threats. I think as a replacement for the F-111 its going to fall very short in key areas. The F-111 is an extremely fast aircraft at low level (and high level for that matter) with a huge range (relative to the superhornet) and much higher bomb load capacity. It out performed some of the slicker newer strike fighters in Gulf War I despite its age.
Ironwulf2000 2 years ago 2
@Ironwulf2000 Because the USAF doesnt operate this aircraft any more, its hard to get parts and support for, so I can understand the need to replace it. but, why not look to get some heavily refurbished F-15Es? They have the balls, the range, the speed, the terrain following capability and the more modern electronics, and i bet once its dropped its bombs it can turn with the best of them, or have the legs to escape at high speed.
Ironwulf2000 2 years ago
Totally agree with you there Ironwulf2000.
F15Es would be the best option by far.
However, the truth is, the F111 fleet could be kept going for a LONG time yet. We have access to all the F111s sitting in the 'boneyard' is the Nevada (is it) desert, and we have been sourcing spares from there for a long time.
From what I have read from Karlo Copp, it would be easy to manufacture any parts that could not be sourced from these aircraft...
ThaFunkster100 2 years ago
I agree with everything you posted. F-15E's would have been a far better choice. Especially with GE F110-290 engines. You're talking a very serious aircraft with virtually no engine restrictions and once free of it's bomb load becomes an F-15 Air to Air fighter on steroids. The Super Slug has far too much drag and doesn't come close to energy retention that the F-15 does. That F-15 design is just superb at maintaining energy in a turn. I'd rather take on an Su-27/30 in an F-15E vs. F-18E
Snakedriver0112358 2 years ago
However, the Super Hornet will require much less maintaince (for every 1 hour of F-111 flight, it requires 180 hours of maintaince), while the F-111 was extremely expensive to run. The Super Hornet is a fair more advance aircraft, and has a great muliti role capability. The F-111 was a good aircraft, however the Super Hornet will be of more use to the RAAF.
RAAFsuperhornet 2 years ago
Regardless, my comment wasnt that we should retain the F-111, although in my belief it has benefits that outweigh its drawbacks, it was that there were more capable, battle proven 'interim' aircraft available that MUCH MORE CLOSELY match the F-111s capabilities.
But, why not have both? The Superhornet would make an excellent close air support and battlefield interdiction aircraft. Retain the F-111 for the long range strike role- for which it (still) excels.
Ironwulf2000 2 years ago
@Ironwulf2000 couldn't agree more with you man...they should still keep some of the f 111's n use others for spares or something because the hornet is no direct replacement. Having said that the f35 is no direct replacement either
kofski321 2 years ago