Fighter yes. Attack no, but it was designed to be a front line, horizon to horizon shoot and forget about it aircraft.

​@@ericernsberger5325 it was designed with A2G capability, it was just used as an interceptor when it entered service as that was the threat at the time. the A6 and A7 did air to ground at that time. Later when it got upgraded with LANTIRN it had the same precision bombing capability as the hornet but with vastly greater loiter time and payload. The Tomcat was faster, had longer range, further reach, steeper climb angle, carried more ordinance and wasn't tied to the tanker like the hornet was (is). It could also carry out air to ground missions without an escort.

@@ericernsberger5325 First of all, It's called the "F/A" Why do you think that is? Also when it was designed, it was the competitor to F-16 in the "Lightweight fighter program" which was designed to be a close in, fox 2 ONLY dogfighter, not a BVR fighter. You're completely wrong on both of your statements.

@@Snugggg I agree, but a hornet didn't have all those capabilities, I was an aviation electronics tech on the hornet. Now reliability, was what the tomcat in the 90s suffered from, but hands down they smoked the hornets at air superiority.

@@therocinante3443, what platform were you on, were you any, and or were you a pilot, I didn't downplay much to be wrong about, a multiple role Aircraft is never perfect at all jobs it can be tasked with, as per example, yes the tomcat in the 90s could have had better payload, but we dropped the bombs from MY SQUADRON....and my sister squadrons....I was an aviation electronics tech O level so I pulled boxes,xand troubleshoot the aircraft, the tomcat ran missions too, but they also took the best pics, and ran escort because that was a better fit...so YEH I do know what F/A stands for, but someone asked if B stands for bomber....I know the designations because I worked on them.

@Shubhabrata banerjee Thank you... good points

@Shubhabrata banerjee Gen 5 won't dominate anything. They're a stepping stone to Gen 6. Speed is the new stealth.

@Shubhabrata banerjee no, I just watch Topgun: Maverick "it's not the plane, it's the pilot". Jokes aside, the amount of politics involved is probably comparable between those exercises and the film. What'll happen to careers of aviators who'd manage to humiliate, say, an F-35 in an exercise everyone is watching, and costs the program orders? They'll be ostensibly complimented, but then will fly a crop duster if not a desk. Because, "not a team player". Want to see real results? Give a few to Ukraine.

@Shubhabrata banerjee It's a nice film. As long as one remembers it's just a film, it's a nice one to watch. Enjoy! Pilots / training / time - yes, of course. Russians flew in Vietnam on a limited basis - under Vietnamese names. The same would have to apply to US or UK crews (incl logistics and maintenance), just like with HIMARS. Re: Russian SAMs - indeed Israel has a history of defeating those. Back when they bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, the SAMs guarding it were off. For lunch or prayer, I forget. Similar with air to air - Russians had to send their pilots to Egypt way back when to show those MIGs could shoot down Israeli fighters. But on a serious note, a well-planned F-22 or F-35 mission can disrupt a kill chain of any SAM Israel's neighbors have even on their best day - and those guys don't have those good days often, I reckon. Now, if a pilot makes a mistake, or there's an intel leak, or weather conditions conspire to expose the jet, and the SAM guys aren't napping - you can have a F-117A on 27 March 1999 in Yugoslavia. Lt. Col. Đorđe Aničić didn't just shoot down one F-117A - he shot down the whole program.

Murder Hornet is clearly the coolest and has the best T-shirt logo but is probably a bit too politically incorrect in this day and age. "OMG they are murderers" etc etc :/

Murder Hornet is the best!

Maybe they are reserving that name for a future possible stealth hornet?

Block III's are regarded as the "rhino" not block II's, as this presenter implied.

They are waiting for the block IIII(4) at least I hope🤞

In 1978 that would have been Northrop's YF-17.

regular hornet yes at high weights but super can hold alot of fuel and has more powerfull enignes

👆 You'd both be fireballs B4 you even knew it in those Walmart Fighters.

@@bigshooter3689 We took a neutral stance, and because of that our inflation is low since we get cheap Russian oil.

But using American weapon platforms comes with geopolitical strings attached. The Rafale-M is a more suitable proposition. It's a newer platform, very capable, and has some commonality of parts and training with the IAF Rafales. Also India does not need to ask France permission on how and when to use the Rafale.

@@Radis001 no the fa 18 is better

@@Radis001 There's no limitation imposed on Indian use of the aircraft.

This aircraft is better for navy no doubt , its very battle tested . Block 3 of this aircraft can probably match refales .

Yes in the USA that is

You’re correct! Not to say that you are wrong on this part, but I don’t think there would be any aircraft designated as F/B, rather just F/A because these jets can’t carry a payload of a bomber, like the B52.

Exactly....

@@sirethanthegreat4069 su34 but that’s Russia, or Northrop Grumman proposed a fb23 that never went anywhere however idk if the fb23 would’ve had pylons

@@sirethanthegreat4069 F-111?

Really?....Are you sure?

Because they are stupid. They destroy the aerodynamics of the aircraft. It's not like you can just drop the tanks mid-flight and engage an enemy, no, you're stuck with them and the huge amount of drag they cause.

@@JohnDoe-ml8ru They don't destroy the aerodynamics… that's why they're conformal. They cause 95% less drag than standard drop tanks out on the wing which opens up another stores spot for armament. They're evaluating, still, their usage and viability for CATOBAR and high G maneuvers.

@@JohnDoe-ml8ru I guess they make sense for Growlers and maybe some training flights.

I believe it was a cost issue. The CFT add 2000lbs empty weight which adversely affects the F-18's bring back capability mitigating that would have required the USN to buy GEs enhanced performance engine (EPE), increasing the F414-GE-400's power output from 22,000 to 26,400 lbf The cost of add the EPE to just off set the CFT was not worth it

As long as the Navy buys the new GE engines that make the F-18 faster.

Adds too much weight to already low thrust to weight ratio

Not an easy task and would be wasted effort and money on a platform that will soon be ceasing production.

Good to hear. They don't look like a good idea as far as drag and weight.

Yes, but there was no such designation in the U.S. Military system when the Navy (and/or McDonnell-Douglas?) made up "F/A." Of course it wasn't as ridiculous as when LBJ misread the name of the RS-71 (the next a/c following the RS-70/XB-70) as SR-71. S indicated ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE, and at the time, there was no designation with R following S. So, in theory, the U.S. had a Mach 3.5 ASW aircraft that flew at 70,000 ft. That goof made a lot of work for the guys who had to change all the Tech Order pages labeled RS-71. This had to be done because nobody was brave enough to contradict LBJ. He often liked to say, "there are two kinds of animals in the White House, elephants and pissants and I'm the only elephant."

​​@@michaeldelaney7271 The Emporer has no clothes. LOL

@@michaeldelaney7271John Kennedy misnomered the SR. It should have been R(econnaissance) S. The Generals just sighed and changed all the paperwork... lol

Sorry, but it was LBJ that announced the "SR-71" around summer of '64. I was stationed at McClellan AFB at the time and we all had a good laugh about the Mach 3+ "Anti-Submarine" aircraft. We even dug out the regs to confirm our belief that an S as a first letter indicated an ASW airplane. Besides, the number used, 71, follows that used for the RS-70 version of the B-70 Valkyrie. Also, the Blackbird was primarily a Reconnaissance with a (negligible) Strike capability. I had classmates from Tech School who had to dump the correct paperwork and switch everything to the LBJ version.@@rcstl8815

🤣🤣

Meanwhile in Indian military industrial complex:- Netra (AEW&CS) Netra (Police Quadcopter UAV) Netra (Network for Space Tracking and Analysis, Indian version of US Space Fence) Netra (NETwork TRaffic Analysis - AI driven mass internet surveillance software similar to the stuff NSA uses) Sindhu Netra (Ocean Surveillance Satellite) . It doesn't end here. Indian weapon naming sense is just weird. Examples:- . Failed missile program: Trishul (cool name). Successor program that was successful: VL-SRSAM (garbage generic jargon). . Lame 2D radar named: Baharini (cool name) Awesome 4D AESA GaN monster named: High Power Radar (WTF! Like naming your pet "DOG") . Lemon ship launched liquid fuelled ballistic missile of dinosaur era: Dhanush (Cool name) AWESOME Satellite murderer: PDV Mk II (???) . Light helicopter: Dhruv Awesome high-tech missile tracking and launching ship (testbed for new radar and missile tech): Also Dhruv

F/a-18A-D blkI = hornet F/a-18E/F blkII = super hornet F/a-18E/F blkIII = rhino

Supreme Hornet Superior Hornet

Thats an option for country, if they want this aircraft by their requirements.

The Navy elected against the new engines.

​​@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 I heard they said no to the external fuel tanks, not the new engines.

The legacy Hornet and the Super Bug are entirely different aircraft.

I think not so: sinze the debut was the Rafale designed for evolutions up to Gen 5, seem not possible with the F18, but the F18 is still a very capable aircraft and relatively low cost (for a twin jet engined fighter) because was produced in very large number

@@leneanderthalien Well the rafale gen5 doen't exist right now that was my point its on par with a rafale.

Look forward to which one of the two Indian Navy selects as its stopgap carrier fighter.

I thought Micky D made the F-17.

Man people are gonna say whatever to bring back f14s won't they

The F-14 could outrun missiles.

Navy sundowned the Skyhawk in 2003. A-7 was sundowned in 1998.

@@AA-xo9uw Yes, but the A-4s were very few in only the aggressor roll. The A-7s were the current light attack aircraft in the fleet having replaced the A-4 in that roll. The F-18 replaced the A-7 ringing in the new multi roll mission. Trust me, I have been in the 18 community my entire life. I can show you pictures of the first 18s at Lemoore NAS with A-7s all around them waiting for their turn to be replaced. All the squadrons having flown the 18 legacy were A-7 squadrons prior to the transition to the 18s.

Next up is the Block 4 variant "Gangsta Hornet"

Or…Hyper Hornet or, Uber Hornet?

@@GM-fh5jp Judging by what is happening in US these days, they might end up calling it "Rainbow Hornet".

@@death_parade Yup...it's an equal opportunity killer ;)

Not quite. VMFA-314 - the first to operate the legacy Hornet in the fleet - embarked aboard Coral Sea with CVW-13 for El Dorado Canyon as well.

@@AA-xo9uw Roger that brother , I was thinking on the east coast at Cecil field , Thanks for your service !

F-18 Super Hornet always had an AESA radar. Even legacy hornet have been upgraded by Canada and Spain to house AESA radar.

Engine spacing, variable thrust would hinder more than help

Too much fuel consumption.

They do it with the old displays. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Also, they have fingerless gloves.

Oh, what you are shown is nothing compared to what the U.S. actually has. In the early 1990s the head of U.S. Naval air branch said we had ships right out of Star wars.

You know, the J-15 had been using single piece touch screen and IRST for a very long time, and the newest J-15T has AESA radar that’s much larger than that of the F/A-18 block III and have internal fuel tank large enough to negate the use of external or conformal fuel tanks.

LOL. These comments never get old. Usually its Americans who are novice to technology that come up with this nonsense because they fail to understand the nature and reason for the technological lead the US has. At the same time they fail to realize the more impressive parts of US military technology because they appear to the untrained eye as "mundane stuff". And its not just technology that these people are novices in, but also military stuff in general. The kind of armchairs that talk tactics and not logistics.

With the new engines, it should break the mach 2 barrier.

I wonder what those tanks do to the agility of the jet? I imagine it can’t be good.

@@ninjaskeleton6140 They actually improve the L/D ratio but they are incompatible with operating aboard a CVN.

They aren't at least on USN Block III Super Bugs. The Navy issued a stop work order on CFTs back in January of 2021. Prospective foreign customers will have the option of buying CFT equipped Super Bugs.

@@AA-xo9uw exactly what I thought I'd heard. Foreign buyers will have the option.

Our Growlers are already built on the frame of the super…. They will get all the upgrades that make them BLK-III… that’s if ofc they don’t decide to send them to reserves or other branches as that has been on the table lately.

the "super hornet growler" is already a thing as the growler is a electronic warfare variant of the super hornet.

It was Micky D, wasn't it???

And A-6

Don’t underestimate the eo system being built into it as well

Block II is where it got larger. Block III is not a size increase

YF-17 was part of the Lightweight Fighter Program. It would eventually become the legacy F/A-18.

Isn’t the F-22 a two-engine variant of the F-35 with thrust vectoring capability?🤔

@@vitor2650 no, the f-22 sensors are designed for long range combat engagements while the f-35 sensors are for multirole capabilities such as detecting land threats. The design of the two aircrafts match their specific purpose as well.

that already exists is called the F-22

That many changes to an aircraft would hardly be classified as a "variant". Might as well be the f38

@@k.h.1587 you live in the world where the f-35b exist please go look it up

The block 2 is also called the rhino.

Big differences between the Cobra and the Hornet which go unnoticed by neophytes.

@@AA-xo9uw True. And, there have almost always been big differences between Prototypes and Production aircraft. I used to work in the department next door to Flight Test at Northrop. While McD was "improving" the F-17 Prototype they provided endless entertainment to the Engineers who had actually designed the aircraft. McDonnell had certain "trademark" design touches they wanted to incorporate into the look of the aircraft. These signature features caused "minor" problems like an inability to take off and over-stressing the wings. Our test guys were constantly telling the latest horror stories from Edwards AFB as the "improved" aircraft was going through testing. Another fun fact: McDonnell-Douglas contractually agreed that (since they "owned" Congress) they would be Prime on all Carrier Versions of the aircraft and Northrop would be Principal Sub-Contractor. For any aircraft that would be land based, Northrop would be Prime Contractor and McD would be the Principal Sub. Northrop designed the F-18L (Land Based) which had a weight reduction of 1,500 lbs. This would have been a considerable improvement over the "F/A-18." True to their Scorpion nature (old fable), McD sold the "F/A" to such Aircraft Carrier operators as Canada, Australia, Finland, Malaysia, Kuwait and Switzerland! Northrop had to sue to try and enforce the contract and won a settlement of $50 Million and the agreement to be the Principal Sub-Contractor for the aircraft (building the aft 2/3). I'm sure Members of Congress helped persuade Northrop to accept the settlement, partly by dangling the contracts for the Stealth B-2 and Stealthy ATA as a carrot. Of course the B-2 contract was later slashed from 132 a/c (and expected to be more) to 20 + the refurbished Prototype. And, Northrop didn't receive the Advanced Tactical Aircraft contract. Those "great stealth experts" McD were awarded the contract and then failed to deliver, went wildly over budget and had the contract cancelled. Well, at least Northrop was awarded the "B-21" (which should be called B-3) contract. The USAF expects to receive 100-200 B-21's. How long until the quantity is slashed to a token number, say 20? Who can say. Only the Congress knows.

This "neophyte" drafted components of the F/A-18 ... at Northrop.@@AA-xo9uw

yes, Super Hornet and Maverick were the main stars in Topgun:Maverick but the trusty Tomcat stole the show once again.

Incorrect. The Su-22 shot down in June of 2017 was bagged by Lt. Cmdr. Michael “Mob” Tremel VFA-87 flying F/A-18E BuNo 168912 embarked aboard US George H.W. Bush CVN-77 as part of CVW-8.

@@AA-xo9uw Totally missed the joke man. Go watch Topgun 2 then get back to me...

@@Spacegoat92 "Totally missed the joke man. Go watch Topgun 2 then get back to me..."(sic) You obviously didn't watch the movie, kid. No Su-22 Fitters in Top Gun: Maverick. Hangman bagged a Su-57 Felon. You're lame attempt at a "joke"failed due to your ignorance, pogue. Now run along.

@@AA-xo9uw No, my joke is on point. You just still missed it. While you are correct that there were no SU-22's SEEN in the movie, when we meet Hangman, Coyote, Payback, Fanboy and Phoenix at the Hard Deck bar, Phoenix introduces Hangman, an this exchange occurs something like this: Phoenix: "You're looking at the only naval aviator on active duty with a confirmed air to air kill, but the other guy was in a museum piece from the Korean war" Coyote: Cold War Payback: Different wars, same century Fanboy: Not this one. And while they didn't name the type of aircraft, I do believe the the Su-22 fits the bill as a cold war aircraft yes? So Hangman, being an F-18 pilot quite possibly could have shot down an SU-22 in an F-18, like it was mentioned in the video, so my joke still stands. I understand your memory might be getting a bit spotty due to your old age, so i forgive you for your ignorance. You might wanna hobble along back to the old folks home and ask a nurse if she would play the movie for you again so you can get future Topgun references and not look so lame.

Nope.

@@zackthebongripper7274 do you even know fighter jets? The super hornet is super maneuverable definitely on slower speeds and the super hornet is better in the rate fight too, hints: the nose authority

The F14 was a maintenance hog but was a vastly superior fighter . What happened was there was a thawing of the cold war and the navy was in a fiscal crunch combined with weapons treaties . The navy wanted to still be in the aviation business but couldn't afford at the time 11 super carriers and something as maintenance intensive as an F14 Tomcat so they went with the superhornet which is a good all around plane but wouldn't compare to equivalently modernized super Tomcat 21 . Right now the F18 doesn't have the kinematics to fight in a stand up fight against potential peer adversaries . The F35 is down kinematically as well but also can't carry lots of ordinance stealthily.

@@louisbabycos106 Dick Cheney - with help from a complicit NAVAIR - killed the F-14.

Yes, indeed.

And attack.