From the cockpit of an F-18

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

All of the F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets can be called "F-18" aircraft.

Sure, they can be, but it's technically incorrect. That would imply that it's strictly a fighter, with no attack capability. And that's wrong.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

All of the F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets can be called "F-18" aircraft.

Sure, they can be, but it's technically incorrect. That would imply that it's strictly a fighter, with no attack capability. And that's wrong.

If it were called an FA-18, of an AF-18 then I would agree with you, but it's not; the slant means that it is an F-18 or an A-18 depending on the specific sortie, and as a matter of grammar.

For example, "If your son/daughter must be absent from school please notify the attendance office as soon as possible the day of the absence."

In reality, no one ever uses the aircraft's designation to differentiate between its missions, so it's just easier to pick one or the other, and no one in their right mind is going to call a Hornet an A-18!

The F-18 wasn't the first multi-role aircraft but you don't hear anyone calling the F-4 Phantom an F/A-4. No one ever confused the A-7 Corsair with an F/A-7 Corsair even though it had an internal cannon and Sidewinder missiles.

The only reason the F/A designation came up for the F/A-18 was as a marketing and lobbying tool because it was replacing the both the A-7 in the Navy's light attack squadrons and the F-4 in Marine squadrons.

In real life, although it's designated as either, everyone just calls it an "F-18" because that's really its primary role, and it's cooler that way. It's only an attack aircraft when it's loaded with air-to-ground ordinance, and even then, it's still carrying air-to-air missiles and can engage an enemy aircraft should the need arise.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[JohnRich 4]

If your son/daughter was transgender or a hermaphrodite, and could fill the role of either a male or a female depending upon their mood, then I would agree with you. But for ordinary sons/daughters, they are either one or the other, and do not switch back and forth. But we're not talking sex organs here, we're talking about airplanes. This is a common aircraft that can do two things, and it's official "F/A" designation reflects that. It can do both functions on the same mission, and is not restricted to doing just one or the other at a time. So the F/A-18 is sort of like the hermaphrodite in your son/daughter example - it can go either way.

If no one in their right mind would call it an A-18, even if it's on an attack mission, then why should it be called an F-18? First you say it can be called one or the other depending upon the role it's playing, and then you say that it's nonsense to call it one of those things. You've contradicted yourself.

F-4's were called that because it was the official designation, even though they could also deliver bombs.

Just because something is "cooler" doesn't make it correct. Gangsters use a lot of cool english, but it sure as heck isn't the official way to speak or write english.

You may not agree with what it's called, but "F/A-18" IS the official name of the aircraft.

But hey, you can call it an AN-2 if you want, and that's okay with me. But it'll confuse people, just like calling it an F-18. If you want to be clear, you call it what it is: F/A-18.

[DSE 3]

Quote

but it sure as heck isn't the official way to speak or write english.

Neither is that sentence....
Just to throw a wrench in the rhythm of your debate...

Googling "official english" got me even more confused.

Informative thread though, because until Sacex' post, I thought it was just "F-18."

Thanks for the education, guys.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

But hey, you can call it an AN-2 if you want, and that's okay with me. But it'll confuse people, just like calling it an F-18.

No it wouldn't. If he called it an AN-2, people would think he was talking about an AN-2. If he calls it an F-18, they'll think he's talking about an F/A-18.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Picture of an AN-2 breaking the sound barrier!

[billvon 2,395]

>then why should it be called an F-18? . .

>You may not agree with what it's called, but "F/A-18" IS the official name of the aircraft.

Down by Miramar there's a big sign that they put up for the yearly airshow there. It mentions they are home to the MCAS F-18 Super Hornet.

A caption from a picture of an F-18 from the Nellis Air Force Base website, http://www.nellis.af.mil:

=============
NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. -- A U.S. Marine Corps F-18 from Marine Attack Squadron 225, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., patrols the skies over the Nevada Test and Training Range during Red Flag-Nellis 10-4 mission July 21, 2010. Red Flag is a realistic combat training exercise involving the air forces of the United States and its allies. The exercise is hosted north of Las Vegas on the Nevada Test and Training Range--the U.S. Air Force's premier military training area with more than 12,000 square miles of airspace and 2.9 million acres of land. With 1,900 possible targets, realistic threat systems and an opposing enemy force that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world, Nellis and the NTTR are the home of a "peacetime battlefield," providing combat air forces with the ability to train to fly, fight and win together. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Daniel Phelps)
100721-F-6593P-018.jpg
=================


Better give those clowns a call and tell them they're wrong.

[Deyan 31]

I'm just curious how many flight hours one should have before he can take a small format camera on a flight

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[BobMoore 0]

Quote

I'm just curious how many flight hours one should have before he can take a small format camera on a flight

200. Silly boy.

"For you see, an airplane is an airplane. A landing area is a landing area. But a dropzone... a dropzone is the people."

[sacex250 0]

Quote

I'm just curious how many flight hours one should have before he can take a small format camera on a flight

It's not how many hours before he can take it on the plane; it's how many hours before he's allowed to use the parachute in his ejection seat!

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

If no one in their right mind would call it an A-18, even if it's on an attack mission, then why should it be called an F-18? First you say it can be called one or the other depending upon the role it's playing, and then you say that it's nonsense to call it one of those things. You've contradicted yourself.

F-4's were called that because it was the official designation, even though they could also deliver bombs.

Here's what would have likely happened if things worked out as they traditionally did.

The Navy was looking for a replacement for the A-7 in their light attack (VA) squadrons and the Marines, also a part of the Navy, were looking for a replacement for their F-4s in their strike fighter (VMFA) squadrons. Under the scheme at the time, the Marine aircraft would have been called "F-18"s and the Navy aircraft would have been called "A-18"s. Yes, it sounds silly today, but it's not so far fetched.

Take a look at the designations of the Sikorsky H-60. The Army version was designated UH-60 as a Utility helicopter. The Navy Seahawk was designated SH-60 as an ASW aircraft. The Air Force and Coast Guard helicopters were designated HH-60 as rescue aircraft. Nobody even thinks twice about this because the aircraft are not interchangeable.

But, could you imagine if the Navy had stuck with the A-18 designation in its VA squadrons. Oh, the horror of the interservice rivalry as the Marine pilots could claim they were fighter pilots and the Navy pilots were lowly attack pilots even though they were the exact same, and essentially interchangeable, aircraft.

The F/A-18 designation is an anachronism left over from a time when both the Navy's A-18s and the Marines F-18s would both be in the same inventory system known as Bureau Numbers (BuNos). This is the service serial number that is given to the aircraft and the pilot uses as a radio call sign when communicating with civilian air traffic control. The BuNos is a six digit number that is painted on the side of the airplane near the tail; the aircraft designation is painted just above it. Since the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft are in the same numbering system and the aircraft are basically interchangeable the designation painted above the BuNos is "F/A-18." Meaning that the aircraft could potentially be either a Navy A-18 or a Marine F-18.

As it came to pass, the Navy changed the designations of the VA squadrons to VFA squadrons as their new F-18s replaced their A-7s, i.e. VA-25 became VFA-25.

There are a bunch of Navy Hornet pilots who should probably be really happy that it worked out that way.

In other words, just call it an "AN-2"!

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[GobbleGobble 0]

Quote

Quote

There's no such thing as an F-18. It's called an F/A-18.

Well, there was the McDonnell Douglas A-18A and the F-18A which were eventually combined to produce the F/A-18A. Then there was the TF-18A which became the F/A-18B, then there's the CF-18 variant and also the Northrop Grumman F-18L. But pointing that out would just be pedantic.

The F/A-18 was a pretty weird procurement. There were two main entries in the light weight fighter program run by the USAF. General Dynamics produced the YF-16, and Northrop entered the YF-17. This whole thing became a thing when folks saw the spiraling costs of developing the F-14 and the F-15. The idea was to produce a simpler platform in bulk that was closely aligned to MAJ Boyd's E-M theory (small, light, no bombs, pure fighter). Congress wanted greater commonality between the services and the potential cost savings it represented. So that's how the Navy got involved. Basically the USAF chose the YF-16 which became the F-16. The Navy said no since they weren't wild on flying a single engine fighter off carriers (still aren't depending on who you talk to). The Navy asked Northrop to make some changes to the YF-17 entry which became the F-18. The Navy then took the design from Northrop and gave production rights to McDonnell. Poof the legacy Hornet was born. The Super Hornet is a completely different AC don't compare it to the legacy 18s.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The F/A-18 designation is an anachronism left over from a time...

Yep, aircraft designations are often a bit goofy. Nevertheless, there is only one offical designation.

Attached: A real AN-2 breaking the sound barrier. Really!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The idea was to produce a simpler platform in bulk that was closely aligned to MAJ Boyd's E-M theory (small, light, no bombs, pure fighter).

You said a magic word there when you mentioned "Boyd". I just read his biography a few months ago, and was amazed that I had never heard of him before. He was influential in modern dog-fighting tactics and in the design of numerous modern aircraft. And yet he's relatively unknown to most people.

I recall one of his stories from the Korean War, where they were making bombing runs on two adjacent enemy-occupied hilltops. They would bomb hill 1, then on the next pass bomb hill 2, and repeat. The enemy got so used to it, that when it was hill 1's turn to be bombed, the enemy on hill 2 would pop up to watch, feeling perfectly safe because of the repeated pattern. That's when Boyd changed the pattern and hit hill 2 twice in a row, catching them out of their bunkers, and nearly wiping out the enemy stronghold.

[tharv17 0]

I just forgot to put the A after the F. Lots of knowledge ensued though so cant say I have any regrets.

Legit question, the F-16 and F-15E can also attack ground targets but are not designated F/A, any reason?

Or is that like saying an A-10 with a sidewinder is a fighter? Which its clearly not designed as.

Either way, I thought the video was very cool and can only once again say those pilots are awesome.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

I just forgot to put the A after the F. Lots of knowledge ensued though so cant say I have any regrets.

Legit question, the F-16 and F-15E can also attack ground targets but are not designated F/A, any reason?

Or is that like saying an A-10 with a sidewinder is a fighter? Which its clearly not designed as.

Either way, I thought the video was very cool and can only once again say those pilots are awesome.

I think that the F-16 and F-15E aren't designated (or re-designated) with an "A" because they were originally fighters. The attack capabilities are either secondary or later additions. The -18 was originally designed to be both (as was discussed until well after the horse was dead).

There are those on here who enjoy nit-picking. Although they can get tiresome sometimes, it is nice to know that most of the details on these sorts of things are going to be accurate. Either to start with or after the nit-pickers get done with them.

And thanks for posting the video. It was very cool.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the F-16 and F-15E can also attack ground targets but are not designated F/A, any reason?

They were originally designed as fighters, and so were named with only an "F". But there wasn't anyone for them to dogfight with for air superiority in our current wars, so they were retrofitted to drop smart bombs so they could be put to good use. So they're fighters, doing attack missions. The versatility is nice, but it makes the names a bit goofy compared to how they're actually used.

Another story. The book "Horse Soldiers", is about Army Special Forces that went into the war in Iraq early to fight with the rebels to overthrow the Taliban. They called in air strikes on enemy positions to help the rebels win battles. In one instance, the soldier couldn't get close enough to accurately determine a GPS position for the bomb drop, so he made his best guess and radioed it up to a high circling aircraft. The bomb was dropped, and it missed the enemy by several hundred yards. The solder radioed up to the pilot to standby for a correction and be ready to drop another bomb. Meanwhile, the Taliban soldiers wandered over to where this bomb crater had magically appeared out of the middle of nowhere with no warning, and stood on the edge pondering the smoking hole in the ground. So the soldier radioed the pilot to drop the second bomb in the exact same place as the first one. BOOM! No more Taliban.

[tharv17 0]

Thanks for the knowledge everyone, good stuff.

[Rainbo 0]

This post reminds me of why I don't hang out here much anymore. Somebody posts something kind of cool and it turns into a flame war of who's the smartest hanging dick on the face of the earth...

I guess growing up is a thing of the past.

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."