Thanks to Superrhinoceront for the vid.
Note: I don't know what the definition is of super agile when it comes to fighter aircraft. The SU-35 has been called super agile but this vid shows the Super Hornet flying the same profile without problem. Additionally the F-16 is supposedly even better than the SH in some flight profiles. If you have a solid definition, send it my way. Last. Will the F-35 be called super agile....no need to answer. It was a rhetorical question. Oh. Turn the speakers off for this vid.
Note: I don't know what the definition is of super agile when it comes to fighter aircraft. The SU-35 has been called super agile but this vid shows the Super Hornet flying the same profile without problem. Additionally the F-16 is supposedly even better than the SH in some flight profiles. If you have a solid definition, send it my way. Last. Will the F-35 be called super agile....no need to answer. It was a rhetorical question. Oh. Turn the speakers off for this vid.
Is the F-35 super agile? Absolutely, it's been able to outmaneuver far better hardware for funding.
ReplyDeletetoo funny! i needed that.
DeleteThat porn had some good music.
ReplyDeleteThanks Solomon for the comments and for sharing the video. What is absolutely clear for me is that the Super Hornet and the Hornets are the most maneuverable airplanes in multirrol configuration at transonic speed. As Ricardo Traven said in the Malasya demo loaded with 6k pounds, any airplane can do well in clean configuration. For example, I still waiting for the Rafale to make an impressive demo in real combat configuration. Try to watch the rest of the videos I made for my YouTube channel where you will notice what a great machine is the Rhino in different scenarios and against other machines. Cheers
ReplyDeleteIn the video we see F18 flying at higher speed in most maneuveres which consist of short pulls as to keep speed up , while flanker goes deep into post stall regime and sheds speed almost to stand still and demonstrates control , so all the comments like nice Cobra and 'faling down' are just stupid as plane actually went trough negative airspeed (for a moment its flying tail first) that would flame out F18 engines and only thing you would see is a pancake on the tarmac.
DeleteMr. T, I have tail slid the Hornet numerous times for out control flights in the Fleet Replacement Squadron and the engines never flamed out. The F-404 and F-414 engines are very reliable.
DeleteThe aviation community usually considers aircraft with thrust vectoring engines (F-22, Su-35, Su-30MKI) to be "Super Agile" or having "Super Maneuverability". Probably the best definition is the ability to maneuver past the pure aerodynamic capability of the air frame. We never considered the Hornet (Legacy or Super) to be super agile, though both Hornet models have always had superior slow speed handling and high AOA control.
ReplyDeleteThe Su-35 in the video is not the current Su-35 being offered by Sukhoi. It was hard to tell, but the Flanker in the video did not seem to have thrust vectoring. Check out the new Su-35 from the Paris air show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY
Yes, the F-16 is superior to the Super Hornet in a high speed, high G dogfight. The F-16 is a 9G aircraft with roughly the the same thrust to weight as the 7.5G Super Hornet. Our game plan against an F-16 was an aggressive one circle game plan to take advantage of the Hornets 35 AOA limit. The F-16 has a 25 AOA limit, which means it can not fly as slow as the Hornet. The Super Hornet now has the ability to fly above 35 AOA for limited time periods.
My friends who fly the F-35 (Pax River, Eglin, and Yuma) say the F-35 accelerates like a "Block 52 Viper on the deck and its slow speed handling is much like an F/A-18". Is it super agile? By my definition above, no.
so, the 35 can go fast like a F-16 and turn, at least going slow, like an F-18?
DeleteF-35 can accelerate like an F-16. The F-16 has a significant higher advertised speed than the F-35. F-35 has different G limits depending on model. F-35A has 9 Gs, F-35B has 7.0Gs, F-35C has 7.5Gs which will change high speed turn rate.
DeleteLouG, did you friends told you if the B an C F-35models still having the same flight performance carring externally the gun pod, aim9X or other extra load like amraams or bombs?
DeleteThe performance comparisons between the F-35 and the 18 and 16 were based on slick jets. My test pilot friend told me the F-35C performed really well with a full internal load of bombs and missiles (2x2000pd bombs and 2xAIM-120). Since we were both legacy Hornet guys, he compared it to carrying the same load with an F/A-18C. He said the performance was "much" better than what we experienced in a Hornet.
DeleteObviously carrying external ordnance causes a penalty in performance and stealthiness, but we did not talk about external loads since I do not think they were doing that testing yet.
My friend has flown the F-16 numerous times but I do not think it was ever with ordnance since it was part of test pilot certification.
We did not talk about the 9x or the gun pod. The AIM-9X is fairly small and very low drag. It did not cause a performance penalty in the Hornet. I have no idea about an RCS (stealthiness) penalty. Gun pod looks big and bulky but that is far as my knowledge goes on that subject.
good info but lets get to the nuts and butter on this issue. you're in the community so you know the real deal.
Deleteare the secret improvement/mods being pushed by the Navy enough to keep the Super Hornet competitive. no OPSEC violations requested. just an opinion. second. having observed the F-22, do you think the stealth on the F-35 and the benefits from it, are enough to justify every other DoD program being put on the chopping block to acquire it.
just a heads up. i'll be asking about sensor fusion, information overload and whether or not we already have this now, its just being packaged differently.
Super hornet is only competitive at very low speeds because of its straight wing and huge strakes(but in reality no one wants to fight in that regime ,but in all other aspects Flanker outpreforms it , as it has way more power, better thrust to weight ratio ,better acceleration,lower wing loading, caries more internal fuel and the list goes on . Super Hornets aerodnamics are so 'good' it needs to carry stores pylons canted outward innocouring a huge drag penallty just so it doesn't bomb itself. LOL
ReplyDeleteAt very low speed the SH rocks, at transonic speeds LOADED with missiles and bombs outperform the Funkers any day of the week. The Suckoys crash very often doing simple loops for their poor reliability engines that impeach them to apply full power instantly after every pirouette with out power using puring ballistic innertia. Their vectoring engines are just good for making them plunge as a rock after every usseles dance.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is very hard to depart a SH from controlled flight. Although as one read of the USN safety pub showed some years ago; possible. A 2 seater crew that came from F-14s departed their SH from controlled flight at the top of a loop. No biggy as it was practice and they recovered. If you can point the weapons faster to help things like HOBS-dogfight missiles, guns etc that is a help. Don't expect contempt of engagement like an F-15 or F-16 or as this statement put it... -Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-
ReplyDelete-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.
For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-
-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-
-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-
-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-
-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.
Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-
Yes at very low speed (as speed is life ,everyone avoids low speed). Airshow aerobatics are flown at relatively low speeds and so far no one equalled ruskis terms of manuvering in that arena. Agreed russian engines are not as advanced as western ones but in any case plane has more trust better sub and supersonic accereation, higher climbrates ,higher speed ,more internal fuel(desn't need drop tanks to fly past airfield fence, outside very low speed envelope there is no regime where F18 would outpreform Sukhoi. You are comparing a bombtruck (F18E/F)based on a light weight fighter vs an air superiority fighter that can only be matched by likes of F15.
ReplyDeleteThe ruskis pirouettes for exhibitions are useless in combat. They have kill more public than enemy pilots.
ReplyDeleteThe Super Hornet is not just a bombtruck, is the "best bombtruck" with great sensors fusion, air to air weapons and great maneuverabillity for close air support and dogfigth and combined with the Growler can smash any enemy in the air or the ground.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGM-aB1Luc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUdbw__g_Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDeleteThis is the old Su-27M in video. Since 2008 index Su-35 belongs to a different plane. You can compare. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3h2PIo0tt0
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the SH with 10 missiles. You can't compare.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=8t_uw1mGohw&sns=em