What is the Difference Between F-18 Hornet and F-18 Super Hornet?
The F-18 Super Hornet, compared to the F-18 Hornet, offers a range of notable improvements. It features a redesigned airframe that is 25% larger than its predecessor. It also incorporates enlarged rectangular air intakes, upgraded General Electric F414 engines controlled by FADEC that deliver increased power, and an enhanced avionics suite for improved performance. It also significantly increased fuel capacity both internally and externally. Specifically, it boasts an internal fuel capacity that surpasses its predecessor by 33%. This, coupled with its expanded wing surfaces, yields a remarkable 50% augmentation in range compared to the smaller, original Hornet. Moreover, the Super Hornet is equipped with two extra weapons stations, numerous advancements measures to reduce its radar cross-section.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
The super hornet is about 30 percent larger then the legacy hornet , They now can do all missions of 5-6 other aircraft and very easy to maintain , Perfect fit for the US Navy !
Not only for the Navy. (Edit Navi was the result of autocorrect) So much cheaper than the F35. This can perform a lot of Missions where Stealth is not needed.
@@alexanderweigand6758 Roger that Navy and Marines !
We have them here in Australia along with the F35s.
The super is also made with less parts.
@@ximenoworks As I wrote. Cheap. OK, cheap, but very useful.
The FA 18 still flys here in Canada. We’re getting F35’s to replace them eventually. Great bird. I work on them everyday!
Don’t you mean CF-18? 😜
Ah... so hence, carbon tax
@@gordonsmith5589 yes the CF-18
Aussie hand me downs 😛
@@branaden some of them yes!
0:19 The super hornet was replacing the tomcat not complimenting it. 0:57 The legacy hornet replaced the the A-6, not the super hornet. 1:37 The F-35C is not taking the super hornets place. 3:46 Any aircraft with an after burner can do this. 5:39 Every aircraft can aero brake. 6:08 The legacy hornet also has a carrot or as most will call it the E bracket.
This video is fascinating. So many truths and facts along with so many wild inaccuracies. You can start with the tall tale about its relationship with the F-14. It was never meant to compliment it, it was the cost effective replacement for the F-14, which had become too cost inefficient to operate, without needing to clean sheet design an entirely new aircraft that could at the same time utilize some of the same technologies of the already existing legacy hornet. My 20 years in the navy started me out in F-18 squadrons so I’m not just talking out my ass. I know one or two things. It also was not created to retire legacy hornets. It’s tile in the sunset of legacy hornets was to complement them until they reached their end of life and then replace them once they retired, which turned out to be one of the smoothest military aircraft upgrade programs ever.
Other than F-14; what are some of the other wild inaccuracies?
It is interesting how in US service the Super Hornet and Growler are navy aircraft, while in Australian service both are air force land based assets, and yet the aircraft appears to be similarly capable and adaptable in both roles.
A navalized aircraft like the Hornet is more robust relative to some land based fighters like F-16s. This, along with using roadways as runways, is a major draw as well as a 2 engine design when you have fewer jets and lots of air space to patrol.
The USMC flys the F-18 as well as the F-35C.
That's because the F-18 was originally designed for the USAF but lost to the F-16 in the light fighter programme. The US Navy adopted the F-18 because it suited their own requirements at the time and was handed over to McDonnel Douglas to navalise it and they then shafted Northrop, the original designer, by refusing to let them sell their own original air force design to export air force customers.
The FA 18 super hornet had another innovation: a variable speed, constant frequency electrical generator (VSCF). As its name suggests, the generator puts out electricity at a constant frequency, regardless of how fast or how slow the jet engines are rotating. Being powered directly by the aircraft engines, the generator does not need a separate motor or fuel supply. This saved space, weight, and simplified maintenance. I did the original illustrations for the VSCF generator on 9/9/01. I was concerned my work might be interrupted by being chosen for jury duty, and was relieved not to have been chosen when I left the courthouse on the afternoon of 9/11 - only to find the world had changed while I was sequestered. With the world trade towers in smoking ruins, I set to my work with determination. I studied the engineering prints provided by the manufacture, Smith’s Aerospace Industries, for 3 days , consulting digital photos, I have taken of a production model. They provided me with a 2D vector graphic STEP file, with which I made the illustrations. After three days of study, I told the writer I was going to produce the art. He objected he had not yet begun to write the work tasks. I asked him if any part of the mechanism would not be illustrated. When he said no, I told him I was going to draw it all in advance of his writing; one illustration with all the components installed, one with all of the components removed, and an illustration of each of the components, and he would be able to cut and paste them together as a markup for me to produce the final art. He was agreeable and the project proceeded smoothly. While I had previously used a 3-D vector graphics UNIX workstation. I performed the art on an Apple computer and handled the 3-D transformations in my head. I’ve never been able to successfully explain that mental process to others, but it works. I used every trick I knew using Adobe Illustrator, including white masking stacking, and clipping masks. I hope those who followed on in subsequent revision of the art figured out how I had accomplished it. The VSCF generator project was one of my favorites, although it was a poignant moment in time in the shadow of 3000 Americans who have died in the world trade center and the Pentagon. God bless the FA 18 super hornet, the US Navy and the USA. 🗽 🇺🇸
The legacy Hornets always had two generators, both powered by the engine through an AMAD interface. The AMAD gearbox got power from the jet engines via a PTS shaft. Once the engines started, the AMAD would power the fuel pumps, hydraulic systems and generators. When I worked on legacy Hornets, we had a special jack for the generator. Similar to a motorcycle jack. If you had to change out an AMAD it was a chore but fun. I never got a chance to work on the Super Hornet, I left the Marine Corps before they were introduced to the Navy and Marine Corps. I miss the GE F404 engine, but the GE F414 engine looks very impressive.
Pretty cool!
You did an impressive work! Back in the early 2000s we engineers didn't have all the 3D CAD that we have today.
Loved the F-404 power plant in the F-18 Hornet (Legacy??). Super easy to work on compared to the J-52 engines used on the A-6 Intruder and A-4 Skyhawk or the TF-41 on A-7E and TF-30 on the TA-A7. I was certified on all four during my Navy career. When General Electric came out with the F-404, it was a game charger in its modularized construction and design and super robust, as well. A fuel cap fodded out one of our F-18s on take-off and the pilot got a fire warning light in the cockpit but it still "turned-N-burned". Upon inspection and use of a flashlight once the aircraft had safely landed, one could view the HPC spool from the hole created in the airframe from the engine bay fire. I build and fly RC aircraft, now, and reflect on many many fine memories from my uniformed wrench turning days. I'd sure love to inspect and have a good "look around" on the GE F414, though, OMG!! LOL!
the f18 so beautiful
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has operated EA-18G and F/A-18F Super Hornets since 2012. They replaced the awesome and much loved airshow favorite F-111C (the 'pig') in the SEAD, DEAD, CAS and maritime strike role. The RAAF already had a large inventory of legacy F/A-18C's so it made perfect sense to transition to these outstanding airframes.
The design of the F/A-18 Super Hornet is actually quite stealthy. While it does not have stealth radar absorbing materials, it does have a relatively small radar signature that is roughly equivalent to that of a beach ball. It's radar image is very similar to the SU-57 and J-20, which are both claimed to be stealth fighters. In many respects, the Super Hornet is a superior fighter jet to the SU-57 and J-20. Superior radar, superior missiles, superior ground attack capabilites, and vastly better communications systems make it one of the most versatile and capable fighter jets.
I thought that couldn't be true that the super hornet has the same radar section as J 20 Seems your right that's so impressive 😮🐝
That is mere speculation, as real data of russian and chinese jets are not available.
Can Super Hornet supercruise? I hear it has to do with the engine performance...
@@rgloria40 No🐝 Supercruise is supersonic flight without afterburner. It's quite a technical leap forward The 🐝 cruises sub sonic if it finds an enemy it can go sonic boom💥 but afteburners cost a lot of fuel🐝 It's why 🐝 are 4.5 and F22 F35 5th generation
@@KonradvonHotzendorf Then can the Supercruise Engine be put into the frame of a Super Hornet like LS1 Corvette Engine in a Jaguar
I started my F/A-18 introduction in June of 1980 as a member of the original legacy Fleet Introduction Team at NAS Lemoore , CA. Moved on from the FIT to VFA-132 which stood up as a new F/A -18 squadron at Lemoore and moved to NAS Cecil Field at Jacksonville FL. Made the first East Coast cruise of the F/A -18 onboard USS Coral Sea with CVW-13. 1985/86. Finally ending up at NAMTRADET as an instructor for the F/A-18 Engines, Fuel System and Secondary Power. I retired from the Navy in August 1991. The Super Hornet was still rather new in 91 I did have some training and introduction to it but nothing like my experience with the legacy. Add all this up and I still have this lingering question regarding the Super Hornet "A tanker??"
Awesome video! Can you do one on the new block 111 hornet? It’s even more powerful, along with other upgrades
Also has helmet mounted site and incredible AOA. Extremely dangerous when working along side of growlers and F 35s
Cool vid. Can you guys do a comparison between an F-16 and Mitsubishi F-2?
Yes. We're working on that right now.
I know its a big tech step above its predeccessor but I still Love the original Hornet design more.
I can’t imagine F35 replacing the super hornet. F35 missions usually have company of F15, F16, or F18SH.
The 35 will not replace the super
The F-35 is replacing legacy Hornets. I think this video didn't phrase that part well.
@@khandimahn9687 Thats a wish but the Navy really dont want the 35.
@@ximenoworks It already mostly does replace the Super Hornet, although it fills the "low" role in the high-low mix for the future; as of now it boasts higher combat range, payload, much better sensors, networking/fusion, and the option of stealth if requested or required. The Navy is waiting to procure Block 4 F35s rather than procuring Block 3F now and then instantly having to retrofit them but they, like the rest of the branches, are trying to procure as many as the budget will allow so they can retire some of the older aircraft and add new capabilities to the fleet (F-35s have guided Aegis missiles onto target already). Granted, they'd likely be much more excited for NGAD but until it finishes development the F-35 is their most capable aircraft.
@@forzaelite1248 The Navy was forced to accept the 35. there is still less the 100 c models. I hated working on them.
I was a young IT engineer at McAir in the late 80s and worked supporting the F-15 and F/A-18 teams. I remember one day when the artist renderings of Super Hornet came out and one of the older F-/A18 engineers says to me: What's wrong with this picture? We stared at it for a bit and suddenly saw the square intakes, and we said Wow, it looks like an F-15 now. I left the industry shortly after fall of the Berlin Wall, and spent the rest of my career in telecomm, but I still miss going out on the flight line after work to watch the new Eagles and Hornets take off on test flights. Glad that the Super Hornet has defended this nation for over 3 decades.
The only time the F18 showed somewhat of "character" to me was in the movie "Independence Day". During those times I was building models of aircraft and the F-18 was okay to me, but nothing special optically. Nearly every other aircraft was more appealing to me, especially the F-14 when it comes to navy aircraft. In the USAF there were I think still some Phantoms (at least in Germany there still where some active), F-111 with their special look, F-15 and F-16. Sowjet/russian aircraft were just looking great like the Mig 29 or the SU 27. And I always liked the look of the A-10. Can't understand how people who are interested in aircraft can find it ugly. Also the SU 25 doesn't look bad. Or the Harrier. But the F-18 optically to me always was "the average Joe" if you know what I mean... .
I was a Plane Captain in the U.S. Navy. The aircraft I worked with is the F/A-18C Legacy Hornet. We never loaded more than two extra fuel tanks on the wings when we were on deployment.
The Super Hornet is a completely different plane compared to the F/A 18. It could and should have its own designation. What a great plane!
I think the name (Hornet) comes from the jet having relatively large 'legs' & the angle of the vertical stabs.
A much bigger price tag. "As an example, in the late 1990s, the unit cost of the F/A-18 Hornet was around $29 million, while the unit cost of the F/A-18 Super Hornet was around $57 million."
That's because the super hornet had to replace several other planes roles. A6 A7 and F14
It replaces everything except the Hawkeye and Growler. And whatever the Navy uses for mid-air refueling. The flexibility if gives to the air wing is worth it. As long as the pilots are up to it, they can run every mission with any of the Super Hornets.
@@recoil53 The Growler is an electronic warfare variant of F/A-18 Super Hornet.
@@recoil53 navy uses F A 18 as refueler and the Growler uses the dame platform. Its a jack off all trades, but it masters none.
@@cannonfodder6299 Sure, but is there an enemy 4th gen platform that exceeds it in any one aspect? Sure an F-15 is better, but that's American.
China's second-rate copies of Russia's second-rate planes aren't much of a challenge to the USA's 6G fighters.
The F/A-18 (Legacy) Hornet was originally intended to compliment the Tomcat, not the Super Hornet.
A marvell work horse for the US military aviation!
The engine intakes that took me 15 years to even notice!
Just wanted to mention that the referenced and displayed P530 in the begining of this video is probably an F5. P530 was very similar to (actually it was the first or original version of) and very similar to F18).
The P530 became the YF-17 entry for the 1971 Lightweight Fighter competition against the F-16 of General Dynamics. When the Air Force picked F-16, the Navy asked for a naval version of YF-17 and teamed Northrop with McDonnell-Douglas to modify it into the F/A-18 replacing the F-4 and A-7 aircraft, and flying with the F-14 in carrier air wings.
In all respects the super hornet dominates... Except for pure aesthetics (which i know doesn't count for anything when considering a machine built for a purpose)
F-14 Tomcat was a maintaners nighmare.Always needed work.11 would fly on the deck and 10 would go to the hanger bay broken. Other than phase maintenance there were more Tomcats in the hanger than anything else.
As an old F14 guy -no matter how "souper" it is a hornet is still just a bug.
Hornet A-D models were tiny in comparison. Fuel guzzlers with little capacity. Super Hornet is a beast in comparison.
*_Sweet._* I've read / heard that apart from such as improved targeting the legacy Bug has a slight advantage over E/F.
1:02 Super Hornet compared to F-14? wouldn't it be more correct to compare Tomcat with legacy, historically?
1:13 *_In the 1990s"?!_* Looks to me like F/A-18E/F came online 1999. Have you confounded the two?
I think of the Super Hornet like a predatory reptile that flies from prehistoric times or a hawk nowadays but a version with missiles and advanced electronics. I also think naming the MQ-1 the “Predator” can be meant to say it can kill from above in hunting. The hornet stings and these were named after insects.
That's the Raptor 😊
I’m torn between “wow this is just cool technology” and “why the h**l can’t we all just stop killing each other already”
You can see the knowledge of stealth with the Super Hornet, the more trapezoidal intakes curving back to the engines (I think now they even add RAM to the intake walls, not sure), the lines of the wings as they hit the fuselage, and the look at the front aspect. This knocks its RCS down to what Russia declares as "stealth", 1 m^2, which is great for a 4+ gen. You also see the influence on the F35c
Superhornet - a stop gap weapons truck that is a jack of all trades and master of none.
Airframe and Power plants are different, (bigger) Upgraded Avionics too. And don't forget when the E/Fs go in for SLEP they will become "Advanced Super Hornets"
I’d still rather be in a Tomcat. That’s what someone said who’d flown both. They should have gone for the super Tomcat.
Grumman couldn't assure the Super Tomcat would be less of a Maintenance issue. Tomcats as Good as they were, had their limitations. Of which the Super Hornets were able to run circles around the Cats. Keep one thing in mind about the A Model Cats. The Crap Pratt and Whitney Engines cost the Navy on Average 1 Tomcat lost every 5 weeks due to Engine Failures.
@@curtekstrom9531 Also to consider that the swing wing design was kinda antiquated by the development of leading edge vortex controls and relaxed stability; it was a lot of weight for not as much gain anymore. _Also_ to consider that they'd be more expensive to do the same job and would be phased out eventually once stealth became prominent
@@forzaelite1248 the Swing was also heavy and complicated
Too bad wanting to fly another aircraft makes it not obsolete, the tomcat was wildly expensive and would have needed major upgrades to make it competitive and by then it would just be cheaper to build a new fighter, even with a brand new super tomcat, the tomcat design still wasn't the best due to it needing heavy maintenance all the time
Crazy just saw this and saw that the thumbnail was me (yellow shirt). Can I ask where you guys got the picture ?
What is the ‘A’ for? Is there a F18 and F/A18
F/A is for "Fighter/Attack". IOW, it can serve an air-to-air role (attack other aircraft) or an air-to-ground role (attack ground/sea targets). That's why it's also called a "dual role" aircraft. All SH can also do tanking duties and then the more specific Growler version.
@@terryritter7065 That makes me more confused? Is the “A” just for show? I mean surely the F35 or F16 are capable of attacking ground and air targets? Is it just a Navy thing? They made it F/A to say it was capable of covering more options than all other jets?
@@d.tim1989 The hornet was the first jet ever to have multirole capability so they chucked the A designation on it, then the F-16 got upgraded and when the F-35 came out just about every jet apart from old F-15s and F-22s had multirole capability so they thought it would be easier just to leave them as F
I wish I had those brakes on my truck,the segmented rotor brakes have motable rotors and discs, stopping power!!!! Saw a S3 take off on the Ike with the brakes on, wheels did not turn once tires blew out!!!
The legacy hornet was the replacement for the A-6. The super hornet was meant to replace the F-14
Would be so much better without the annoying, repetitive "music". Had to bail at 3:00 because I couldn't take it, anymore.
It's amazing how little military technology has progressed. When the hornet came out in 1981 the top plane 40 years ago was the p38 lightning. One of the hottest planes in the sky is the hornet 40 years ago the hottest plane was the hornet.
Funny thing yet poynette...The wing expansion is absolutely Marvie :) The S-3 was soooo loftey, they had to reduce it's loft. Like a zepplin and allmost no need for wires, it floated in. Some ask...why no fwd cannards?...Ans: No need! Next iteration of F-15/16/18 will all have "thrust vectoring" like the -22. Please do these mod's (congress), additional stress point upgrade req'd but don't send our War-horse to pasture quite so soon...Proven reliability, off the shelf tech. Modify, adapt and overcome, no one can touch us...except ourselves.
What the hell is “poynette”????
if I remember correctly 12.5kF model and 14.5k E model hornet fuel capacity but its been a while since I was in EMD flight test for the super hornet
Super hornet engines in legacy hornet would be an interesting experiment. Would be a demo monster
It’s improved, but combat radius is only better by about 200 miles or so Ferry Range by a little over 100, carrying about 360 more gallons of fuel.
thank you for sharing👍
dude also the super hornet is such a pretty jet too man
I wish my stupid Country Canada would have just bought these 15 years ago and we would have had them in full service by now for at least a full decade.
What is the range of radar in super hornet?
These can be a good advertisement to sell F18s of US navy for the upcoming F35s...
I have enjoyed watching these videos, but I have watched videos of pilots claiming how many engine problems there were with the F-14 Tomcat. Is it possible that with improved engine advancements, the Tomcat couldn't have stuck around. I have watched a video sharing that there was a new version of an F- 14, but it was shut down, and we got the Hornet. I ask this, because we now have the new Boeing F-15, but no Tomcat. It really seems like the Tomcat has a stronger frame to work off of. I am not judging, but am interested to know from people in this field to share with me, what I am not aware of. I have always appreciated the U.S. Air Men and Women, but I do scratch my head about these thing's.
I read years ago, that a 'mechanic' said, that the legacy hornet, actually flies better than a super-hornet. Is this true?
The Hornets are beautiful, graceful planes and very intimidating to look at.I would not want to be an enemy pilot going up against one.
Thank you for not saying first. You have my lifetime respect for that
@@alexisjuillard4816First
The inaccuracies and misstatements hurt my soul
What a great video, can't wait to see the F15 EX / F15 comparison. I just wish our engineers would go with thrust vectoring on everything we fly. Not for the energy bleeding airshow maneuvers, but to allow our pilots to turn as tight as the human body allows and for short take offs and landings. F18 is a good looking bird, but I hate to say SU35 is probably the sexiest machine in the sky at the moment. May the F18 make them all crash n burn.
How would thrust vectoring allow for short landings? Also there isn’t much of a need for fighters to be able to turn super quickly so thrust vectoring is kinda pointless. And because it’s just one more thing that has to be maintained, it increases the operating costs of the aircraft it’s used on.
@ryanborax7851 ya vectoring benefits takeoffs. I threw the /landing in there in error. Didn't feel like editing it. I based my argument on the rave reviews the 22's manueverabilty gets from all pilots. I figured it was the next great thing, and 2d vectoring would be on all future fighters. Have you seen the new SU57 upgrade? 2d vectoring now, there is something to it. "Fighters" need to turn tight since missiles don't always work. They keep putting guns on the fighters. That's my end.
The Wing root is a larger canard. The pay load is 1/3 bigger. Fighter/Bomber true to its name. Super.
Fantastic design and awesome aircraft
Great post. Thanks.
You're welcome
Oh your going back to prison for sure
The difference between the two is because there is the addition of the word "super"
The hornet was a replacement of sorts to the Tomcat.
You've added the missiles to the extended range ?? WTFF
Although this are pricey air dominance platforms, they are the Best of Fighter Jet coupled with Fighter Pilots who regularly fly it on training or actual missions. This platform will one thing for sure kick the butts of its enemy in the sky or on ground. I pity it’s opponents.
Russian Su-35SM is a much better aircraft
@@tomascastillo4676No, the SU-35 is not superior. The Super Hornet has much superior radar, missiles, communication systems and networking capabilities. The Super Hornets can network the radars from multiple jets together so the pilots can see the entire battle field - not just what their own radar shows. The Super Hornet also has a much smaller radar signature than the SU-35. The Super Hornet has a radar signature roughly the size of a beach ball while the SU-35 looks like a bus. The superior radar and smaller radar signature on the Super Hornet would allow it to locate and fire on the SU-35 before the SU-35 even knew it was there.
@@tomascastillo4676 At least better than the Wright Brothers' Flyer!
@@tomascastillo4676Don't be ridiculous. 😂
The F-35 Lightning II is replacing the legacy F/A-18 Hornet, not the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet replaced the F-14 Tomcat after the F-14 Super Tomcat 21 was cancelled.
Awesome video
Isn't the F18 superhornet like a diluted F15 with beefed up landing gear and arresting hook?
The super hornet goes down faster against a peer adversary that the regular one.
Sorry, the music made me eject about halfway through. Good info up to that point though!
The Super Hornet Should Had Called the "Wasp" Like F9F Panther & Cougar.
One is a super saiyan the other is a super duper saiyan
SuperHornet must be superior for all stated reasons.There is more that needs to be known,But thats my input
I lasted 1.5 minutes. Your background track got to me. I bailed.
You didnt miss anything, half the information was false and what he got into this 10 minute video he could have fat into a 3 minute one as he repeated the same information over and over again
I think it’s also known as the most reliable
Next decade: here is the super duper F18 😂
We always said how it seems some airline pilots used to be navy...bam!! we're on the ground...
Super hornet is superior of all! Great video
We second the motion! It's super!!! Roa Aotearoa nui.
Every thing is different. The SuperHornet has a much larger airframe to begin with. It is a totally different airplane.
The Hornet is small and dies in one hit, but after ingesting a mushroom, it becomes a larger Super Hornet and dies in two hits.
First of all, it is an F/A-18. Not F-18. It has that designation for a reason. Secondly, there are so many differences between the F/A-18 HORNET and the F/A-18 SUPER HORNET that the two a8rcraft are completely different aircraft from one another.
When Super Hornet came out. F-14 still had better range and a long range missile. Super Hornet could do everything else better than F-14. But they still need long range missles.
Wrong. The Northrop P530 was the YF-17 which is the basis for the FA-18. You used a picture of the F-5E at 0.41. Get it right!
Ugh the F14 is just so flipping hot
4:25 “The Super Hornet achieves takeoff in approximately 1,000 feet less distance” How much did you guys pay the fifth grader who wrote this?
Uh oh, the grammar police showed up.
@@The_Sword3 Don’t get angry at the things you don’t understand. Calm down, guy.
@@cwg73160 OK drama queen.
@@The_Sword3 Why are you so angry? You need to calm down.
@@cwg73160 Why are you so obtuse ?
So tired of non Naval Aviators opining on the up-graded “ lawn dart”! It’s still a lawn dart!
I’ll always love the legacy but, the super rhino is just a bad ass multi role jet that is the United States Navy’s carrier backbone and will be for years to come. Especially when all the block 11’s are uprgaded to the latest and greatest block111’s and I believe the delivery of 70 some brand new block 111’s off the line. I can’t wait….
Legacy Hornet is the "bug". The Rhino is the Super Hornet. There is no "Super Rhino".
@@karlchilders5420 wtf are you talking about? The super hornet is called that too so, yes, there is
@@airprok8328 I tell you what. Why don't you go to the next Tailhook convention in Reno. I'll meet you there, and introduce you in front of a crowd of Naval Aviators (retired, current and potential, Navy and Marines as well as some Coast Guard). I'll tell them you have some late breaking information to share about the name of the weapons systems we are all so familiar with. Then after you get laughed out of the room, I won't say I told you so. I'll just laugh at you because you were so ridiculous as to argue with the people that made those names up and gave them out to the jet in the first place. I will say it AGAIN: Legacy Hornet = the "Bug" Super Hornet = "Rhino"
3:23 - Confusing illustration: That's not a super. What else is wrong...
i love the f18 super hornet its so cool and super fast
What's the difference? The word "Super"
Maybe watch the 10 minute video….lots of differences between the two
Did we watch the same video?
the both of ya need to get a life and some humor 😏
@@NoneofyourBusiness-gy9ywI’m sure they have a life. When someone asks what’s the difference after a video don’t you wonder if they watched it? How do you add humor to chat?
Huge diff!!! know much about aviation do ya?
Man i've never heard of the A-12 until now, but now i KNOW WE NEED THIS MF. IT TOO COOL
из нашево титана было построено 12 бортов А-12
Also, the Super Hornet has 5 wet hardpoints, while the legacy Hornet has only 3.
My hardpoint gets wet thinking about what it must be like to fly either one.
What’s with the weird text in the background at 4:09? Blow buildings? Church of Saints? Demons?
Actually the Super Hornet is a updated version of the F/A-18 the Hornet is the models A-C and the Super Hornet is the models D & E
Not true. Super Hornet is E/F for single/dual seat variants with an enlarged airframe and upgraded stealth, avionics systems and weapons systems. C/D are principally avionics and weapons upgrades to the A/B single/dual seaters.
And the Super Duper Hornet? Gosh, that one must really be sumthin… My sisters boyfriends uncles nephews grandpa saw one once…
so did my 2nd cousin by a future marriage ...
In ‘98 I joined the Navy went to A school for my job rating as a AME Safety and Egress Mechanic. Graduated top of class at 28yrs old and first pick of any orders I wanted. Went to Nas Lemoore, CA to Strike Fighter Squadron- 137 Kestrals (VFA-137) attached to CAG-2 onboard USS Constellation (CV-64) “Connie”. In ’98, ‘01 went to the gulf and on the way back home we stopped at Pearl Harbor where I took my leave and also home. The day after Connie left Pearl with Tigers was 9/11……13month grind and turnaround CAG-2 and CONNIE went to WAR into Baghdad. Bitch and say whatever!! every aircraft other than the F-18’s where barely making sorties the Bounty Hunters VF-2 did everything they could limping and all. Being 1 of 3 Hornet squadrons total our spares were filled by the other squadron pilots due to discrepancies rendering aircraft being down. This is during a 2 week straight non stop night strikes into Baghdad till the “Stinking Lincoln” came to the AOR and relieved us. In 2003 Supers started its delivery into the squadrons its been 20yrs in service during a time where time was against these aircraft’s limping covered in bandages in battle flying over enemy territory!! Lives are in these planes that wasn’t 100% mission/battle ready real shit!! We had no time for capital hill to fine tooth comb decisions either yes/no we’re hunting Hussain and Bin Ladin!!! little things can wait. If you needed a gun and the one in your hand always misfires its all you have and we’re at WAR! would anyone complain or demand a loaded weapon that fires ASAP!! The nation calls upon you to a fight with outdated inventory yet we make it work By the way in 2001 im AME2 (AW) and LPO of 13B AME Seat Shop Leading Petty Officer with 2 E-6 PO’s as my subordinates and for the last deployment in 2003 my Squadron VFA-147 Kestrels was awarded the BATTLE “E” Award taking every category in the aviation, maintenance, safety, sortie completion % and spares loaned out to other squadrons. Everyone has their own opinions but until you! Yourself see and live through decisions these politicians make that affects the way we do our job to the best of our ability with the very best equipment possible I hope you have a stick of gum in your pocket!!! Fixed an aircraft goin into Baghdad with a stick of gum on the fly!! Oh, there’s a difference legacy has 9 load points total Super has 11 and there’s 2 General Electric -404 engines w/ AB in the legacy and the super has 2 GE-414 engines…that’s the difference
Are you saying it's good or nah?
I wasn't sure either. What I am sure of is that that was definitely more than 'Name, Rank and Serial#", but he makes a solid point about politicians.@@peteanderson2533
F-18 Super Hornet is likely more superior only because it's a newer upgrade and a bit of redesign of the original F-18 Hornet. However, the look of the original F-18 Hornet reigns supreme over the Super Hornet. The F-18 Hornet is probably the best looking plane that's ever built in the history of mankind and likely will be the to the end of humankind if there is no WWIII.
Not quite. The original was more nimble and had better acceleration, but longer combat range makes the Super Hornet significantly more operationally effective. How good a fighter is doesn't matter if you can't reach the target, and it also doesn't matter if the floating base it operates from gets sunk because it has to operate closer to the threats in order for the fighters to strike them.
The air inlets, maybe some avionics.
FA-18 Super Hornet.. The superior fighter. Hard to match even with 5th Gen stelth aircraft. As good as the F16 D Fighting