Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jetplane or Helicopter

For someone who doesn't know about the subject, when reading this article, it is difficult to tell whether it is discussing a jetplane or a helicopter. Kingturtle 17:51 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

we are discussing a Jet in this article, this kind of scares me, i am a member of proj Aircraft, i'll get on it as soon as i can. Zeetoboy 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

after looking at article, no changes have been made, page clear. wait..........oh ****, just saw the date on post. my bad Zeetoboy 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture?

where is the picture at the top-right corner?

Photo server has hiccups sometimes. Looks fine for me. --Mmx1 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Price of aircraft

The media says this plane costs $35 million so I'm changing it to that amount.

And the media is always right... - Aerobird 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

no, media is not allways right, i would check a reliable source for the price. never trust the media. they just try to sell newspapers or get people to watch or somting like that. Zeetoboy 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Needed Changes

I am of the opinion the Super Hornet info should be moved off to the separate Super Hornet page, as the two are essentially different airframes.

Needs - elaboration on VFAX concept and strike fighter history. Am not comfortable with language first ____ strike fighter, as the Phantom was a dual role aircraft as well (though designed primarily as an interceptor).

- elaboration of A/A+/C differences. - Numbers in service - elaboration of maintenance overhead and comparison with the Tomcat and the prowler

Aircraft Template

Should Statistical info be done in a sidebox like here or a table (e.g F-15

Armament is really generic - the possibilities are enormous. How to summarize? --Mmx1 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Combat Range

Removed range figures:

Fighter range 1,379 nm 2,554 km Attack range 1,333 nm 2,469 km Ferry range > 1,546 nm > 2,863 km

These are very nebulous and depend on loadout, mission profile, etc. Boeing gives "combat radius" of 500+ nm, while FAS gives "Combat radius, interdiction, hi-lo-lo-hi" of 290 nm.

--Mmx1 02:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Design characterstics

"The LEX allow the Hornet to remain controllable at high aspect ratios."

Perhaps this is mean to say "high angles of attack"?? -- Paul Richter 10:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point; I seem to recall getting it from Orr Kelley's book, but can't confirm as I no longer have the book in my posession. I don't find it implausible that he (a journalist, not an aviation guru) mixed it up with "angle of attack". I'd assumed via context that "aspect ratio" was a synonym for the former. On further inspection, that's far from the case. Change made.

--Mmx1 01:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Headline Photo

Seems like it's not there at all, should we find a new one instead?

HS.1207

I added a note about the exceptionally similar-looking British HS.1207 (P.158) design under the "Operators" section, as that's the only place I could think to fit it, in with the note on the once-considered buy of Super Bugs. If someone else can think of a better place, please feel free to shift it around. - Aerobird 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturer listed in Infobox

• Subcontractors provide subassenblies. That is part of manufacturing. But if subcontractors are not to be listed, then all the articles need to be that way. The F-22 article is not right. There may be others.. -Fnlayson 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The manufacturer section in the infobox was only designed for the manufacturer and not for subcontractors in any way. Thus the Boeing at the F-22 might be wrong. --Denniss 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Manufactuer is a bit vague. You're really meaning the final assemblier/manufacturer. - Fnlayson 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "Prime Contractor"? I believe Boeing is technically considered the prime contractor on this and the F/A-22, among many other products. "Manufacturer" is a more specific term that probably doesn't accurately describe most of the subcontractors either. As "prime", Boeing is responsible for delivery of the final product, its design, and the integration of all its subcontracted components. Boeing probably manufactures some part of the overall product, but its primary role is prime contractor. In fact, it's probably the case that the Boeing division that acts as the prime contractor actually subcontracts to some other division of Boeing for the actual manufacturing of those components actually manufactured by Boeing. ;) --JJLatWiki 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be OK, except for articles where the prime does most everything. I've tried to explain what the companies do in the F/A-18 and F-22 articles in the text. -Fnlayson 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These days, it seems less and less likely that a prime is going to do "most everything" though. Boeing manufactures a significant portion of the F-22, not just the radar subsystem. Without the Boeing portion, there is no airplane. But without almost any other subcontractor, it's still a fully-functional product. So isn't it better and more accurate to say, "Prime Contractor" in the case of most modern military aircraft? --JJLatWiki 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• No disagreement with that. I just think it'll look a bit silly to list 'Prime Contractor: Company Y' for an aircaft that has no subcontractors, like maybe the F-15. -Fnlayson 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It might look silly, but I'm not so sure it would, even in such a case. Does such a case exist though? With the merging of M with D, and N with G, and MD with B, etc, etc, calling one the prime and one a sub changes and blurs. However, even if a single company created an entirely new design all on its own and offered that final product to the military, it's highly unlikely that there will not be major subcontractors specified by the contract. For example, the F-15 might have been offered as a complete product by MD, but it wasn't until at least 2 months later that P&W was chosen as the engine subcontractor and Hughes as the radar subcontractor. For the airframe, MD might have been the manufacturer, but for the weapon system, MD was the prime contractor. Maybe if the infobox had the flexibility to show prime contractor in addition to or instead of manufacturer, we could also include major systems subcontractors like the radar, engines, etc. --JJLatWiki 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove EA-18G

The EA-18G is not a variant of the F/A-18 Hornet, but a variant of F/A-18 E-F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is much a variant of the Hornet as the YF-17 was of the F-5. So I propose removing the EA-18G since it already exists as a variant under the Super Hornet. Of course any facts under the Hornet entry should moved to the Super Hornet entry. Any thoughts? --JJLatWiki 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It should be briefly mentioned here cause it is a variant of the F/A-18 family. But only a couple sentences with a link is needed here for an overview (cut out middle 2 sentences. Put the details in the F/A-18E/F article. -Fnlayson 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I cut EA-18G paragraph back to 2 sentences. See what you think... -Fnlayson 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I like what you've done, but I would not oppose further reductions to even fewer facts. Like "The EA-18G is an electronic attack variant of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. See EA-18G Growler" But I also like the way it is. p.s. I linked directly to the EA-18G to hopefully reduce the drive of other editors to bulk it back up. --JJLatWiki 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good. Cutting out the last sentence wouldn't bother me. I didn't want to do too much at one time. -Fnlayson 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge F-18 Hornet here

• Merge. Not enough differences or information to justify a separate article. Maybe if info on the Swiss F-18s had been added, as was proposed in the last round of merge discussions, but that was not done. Now that the Finnish Air Force intends to add the attack capability back in (2006 reports), there won't be many differneces at all. - BillCJ 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Finlay, thanks for catching my Oops!! - BillCJ 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. Took me a minute to figure out what you meant. -Fnlayson 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge The F-18 article will probably need to be cut in half or so to fit reasonably in the F/A-18 article. -Fnlayson 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry. I can be obtuse sometimes. Since some of the information is repeated in this article already, esp background, it shoulnd't be much of a problem. I just noticed there's 2 long paragraphs on the CF-18, and it has its own article! - BillCJ 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge There is very little technical information to be merged, but the history/politics is vital. The attack capability makes this even more interesting. There is no guarantie that the weaponry will be the original US F/A 18. -- Petri Krohn 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, the information could be added as a seaprate paragraph in the F/A-18 article. The Finnish version differs quite a lot when it comes to electronics and MLU's, but still I believe both articles could benefit from the merger.--MoRsE 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirected here and Moved material to Finnish Air Force. There was not much space (or a place) to merge any of the stuff here, so I added one sentence. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Too late. I would have opposed this merge if I'd seen it. The F-18 was used by the Finns and the Swiss, and as you said there too much information to include it all here, and since the Swiss used it to, it doesn't just belong in the Finnish Air Force article. I'd support splitting it back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the original page was that no one seemed to want to actually put any information on the Swiss version in the article, 2 years after it had been suggested, other than to mention that the Swiss used it. The Swiss have added the ground attack capability, and the Finnish Air Force is considering doing the same. As such, there really isn't that much difference anymore. In addition, most of the unique content is now in the article on the Finnish Air Force, whose editors don't seem to mind hosting it. However, if someone wishes to address the problems raised with the page, I could support it. In addition, it might be worthwhile to place all the export versions (except for the CF-18) in the same article. This would give room for expanding content on all the various export models. Those variants that grow too much could be split off later. - BillCJ 22:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• The history/politics can be stated in one paragraph. The key for me is not whether a variant "deserves" its own article, but whether there is enough information to fill out such an article. As the article currently stands, there is not. - BillCJ 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you are in fact proposing is deletion of the article. What part of the present content would you include in F/A-18 Hornet? I doubt whether there would be space for more than "one paragraph". The F-18 Hornet is now far more than a stub or one paragraph. -- Petri Krohn 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I said the "history/politics" can be covered in one paragraph; its basically two in the F-18 article, and I believe I can merge the 2 together and not lose any content. I am for including all the information there that is not already duplicated in the main article, and I think it can be done in two or three paragraphs.

There is not that much original content there to begin with. If more had been added as had been suggested in September, such as includin information on the Swiss variant, which has similar reasons for not having a ground-attack role, I wouldn't be supporing the merger. Take a look at the CF-18 Hornet article for some ideas on content worthy of a separate article. If those opposing the merger would promise to work on expanding it in the next two months or so (end of Jan), I would support keeping the article. There are several WP:AIR-recommended features I'd like to add, such as the Aircraft Infobox and the Related contents section, which would go a long way toward expanding the article, but I'm waiting for a decision here.

By the way, I took 2 paragraphs on the CF-18 out of the main article, becuase most of it was covered in its own article. The original material in the paragraphs is currently being worked into the article. I'm not against having separate articles for variants; I just want them to be good articles.- BillCJ 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision

By my count, it's 3-1 for the merge. If the suggestions I have made about improving the Finnish F-18 article had been responded to, or any attempt made to improve the article since the last vote on Nov 13, I might have held off my vote. However, in the absence of any response at all, and seeing the the opposing user has been active on Wiki since that time, and since suggestions made in the preivous round of discussions on meger, I am concluding that we need to proceed with the merge. Whlie I understand the desire to have an article dealing with the Finnish F-18 for national or cultural reasons, this is not the Finnish language WIki, which would be the place for that.

If someone wants to make the time and effort to expand the article beyond its current form, including adding content on the similar Swiss version (which again, in the absence of any response on that suggstion, I assume has not been done for national reasons), they are free to work on it. The current content of the article will remain in the History of that page, which will become a redirect here. At that time, it might be wise to achieve a consensus on splitting the article again, as doing so unilaterally might lead to a consensus to merge it here again.

For the record, I worked for 2 months on getting an article on the EA-18 Growler ready, before proposing a split off of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article, so as to avoid having minium content which might lead to its being merged back into the E/F article.

If I am the person doing the merger (hopefully this week), I will take great care to retain as much of the unique content on the Finnish F-18 page, if not in the FInnish section, then somewhere relevant within the article. However, I won't be able to retain all ot it. (See below for a possible solution.) - BillCJ 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

HS.1207

In an interesting twist, the 1976 British HS.1207 (P.158) design carries a striking resemblance to the F/A-18A.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the point, since the F-18 design began in the late 1960s, and the YF-17 flew in 1974, 2 years before the HS.1207 was designed. As uncited info, it appears to be Original Research, as if someone had seen a drawing of the HS.1207, and noted its resemblance to the F-18, and noted that here. From what my own research has been able to gather, the HS.1207 was not even a carrier-capable design. I posted an "fact" tag on Nov 22, which has now been there for 12 days, so I am removing the sentence. - BillCJ 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the point was that the British plane design was influenced by the YF-18/F-18. It still needed a cite saying so. Otherwise it's just somebody's speculation. (I'm still not used to calling these things OR.) -Fnlayson 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New Article Proposal

It may seem strange that after proposing the merger of the Finnish F-18 Hornet article, I am now going to propose a new article to inclue that version, but I am. The Finnsih article has existed for 4 years, but with very little added content since that time. While I agree that the differences warranted extensive treatment, there has been little effort over the past 4 years to seriously expand its content. Two years ago (not 4 months, as I had not read the year right), another merger discussion on that page had suggested adding the Swiss variant into the article, as both variants focus on the air-to-air role, and carried the F-18 designation. For whatever reason, the sugestion has been outright ignored. This, and the current lack of content, were my primary reasons for supporting the merger.

As I have looked at the Export variants and Foreign oerators sections, I wonder if there might be a place for an article covering all the export variants in greater depth (except for the Canadian variant, which has a substansial article already). Just a few sentences per variant, plus the info on the Finnish Hornet, would fill out an article quite well to start with, while leaving plenty space for expansion.

I will wait a few days on merging the Finnish article for comments. In fact, if we did this as a move from F-18 Hornet to a new article, we could retain the Finnish article's history.

As fas as a title, would F/A-18 Hornet (Export variants) be too long and wordy? Of course, consider the following list from the Variants section ((A)F/A-18A, CF-18 Hornet, EF-18 Hornet, KAF-18 Hornet, F-18C/D Hornet, F-18C/D Hornet). All but Australia use a version of the straight F-18 designation, so just expanding the F-18 Hornet article is anothr option.

Any comments or suggestions? - BillCJ 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's enough info in the Jenkins book to warrant individual articles. Unfortunately, I no longer have it at my disposal or the time to incorporate it, but my goal had been to create a page for each export variant. --Mmx1 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Many of the export variants are similar. I think that it is distracting to have separate articles for each individual variant. There are four major variants (Cobra, Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler) and IMHO that is sufficient. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Northrop's role

The article says that Northrop and McDonnell Douglas partnered to build the F-18 with Northrop intending to be the prime on a land based version. There's no mention on their involvement after that. Are they a sub now or did they sell out their part to MD? Or something else? Thanks. -Fnlayson 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Northrop is still listed as the principal subcontractor. [1] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. That should be clarified. I'll try to add a couple sentences telling what each does similar what is in the F-22 article. Something like that anyway. -Fnlayson 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Northrop was a full partner until their lawsuit agaist MDD for competing against it's F-18L for land-based orders. As part of the settlement, MDD bought the full rights to the Hornet. I have a couple of sources on this (printed), and I'll try to get something worked up in a few days. - BillCJ 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the merge tag for the F-18L page (which I didn't even know we had the article). It has cited info on the suit. - BillCJ 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like the details on the MD-Northrop dealings from F-18L got added in the merge. I'll try to add a sentence or two to fill in the holes. -Fnlayson 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah I just added the second paragraph from the F-18L article. I didn't see a quick way to cut that down. -Fnlayson 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because the text from F-18L has been added in yet. I posted the whole text below, but had to take care of "real world" issues before getting a chance to put it in. I'll do what I can, but feel free to work on it also. - BillCJ 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry I scrolled past that section below. I'll see what else I can do on it. -Fnlayson 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested merger

F-18L → F/A-18 Hornet

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support Not enough content to justify a separate arctle; anything that doesn't belong here should fit in the YF-17 Cobra article. - BillCJ 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support — What Bill said. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'm fine with that. That would add more history of the program. -Fnlayson 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good to me. - Aerobird 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Will merge the page shortly. - BillCJ 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Material from F-18L merger

The following material is from the F-18L article. I am not going to try to place all the info under the "F-18L" entry. SOmeone stated in the Merger discussion that the info could help fill out the History section more, so I placed it all here for reference. - BillCJ 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The F-18L was a variant of the naval F/A-18 Hornet, designed by Northrop in the 1970's. Though based on the Northrop YF-17 design, McDonnell Douglas was the prime contractor on the F/A-18 due to its more extensive history of building carrier aircraft. The YF-17 was based on an internal design the P530 Cobra, which Northrop had planned to sell to foreign customers, and it developed the F-18L as a potential export aircraft. Since it did not have to be strengthened for carrier service, it was expected to be lighter and better performing, and a strong competitor to the F-16 Fighting Falcon then being offered to American allies. The F-18L was 7,700 pounds lighter than the F/A-18A, due to a lighter landing gear, removal of the wing folding mechanism, and reduced frame thickness in some areas. Though the aircraft retained an arresting hook, it, too, was lightened. The most obvious external difference was the removal of the "snags" on the leading edge of the wings and stabilators. It still retained 71% commonality with the F/A-18 by parts weight, and 90% of the high-value systems, including the avionics, radar, and ECM suite, though alternatives were offered. Unlike the F/A-18, the F-18L carries no fuel in its wings. The F-18L lacked weapons stations on the intakes; it instead had 3 underwing pylons on each side.

The partnership between the two firms soured, however, over competition for foreign sales. Northrop felt that McDonnel Douglas would put the F/A-18 in direct competition with the F-18L. In October 1979, Northrop filed a series of lawsuits charging that McDonnell was using Northrop technology developed for the F-18L for foreign sales in violation of their agreement, and asked for a moratorium on foreign sales of the Hornet via McDonnell Douglas. The case was resolved in 1985 when McDonnell agreed to pay Northrop $50 million for complete rights to the design, without any admission of wrongdoing. By then Northrop had ceased work on the F-18L, and most export orders captured by the F-16 or the F/A-18. The F-18 Hornet ordered by the Finnish and the Swiss air forces was in fact a F/A-18 without the ground attack capabilities. The Swiss later had the ground attack hardware retrofitted.

• Looks like it is all done now. -Fnlayson 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Users in Intro

This is an American-designed plane built for American forces. What is wrong with stating that in the Intro? And technically, the USN and USMC are not air forces, but naval air arms. - BillCJ 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, the DoD paid for the plane's development. Use by other forces was a secondary thing. -Fnlayson 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA of the future?

If this article had some more inline cites and less lists it would be an excellent GA candidate. Just thought I would bring that up. Perhaps a collaboration is in order? IvoShandor 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• On the lists, I could see doing something with the Milestones, but the others such as variants are needed. -Fnlayson 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You need good sources to move up to GA/Featured status. Jenkins is a pretty thorough one but I no longer have access to a copy. The Milestones list should be obliterated (and integrated elsewhere into the article); it is direct copyright infringement of the Boeing milestone and should be expressed in paragraph form (mostly in history), not as a list.

--Mmx1 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good catch. I had thought the list was reworded or something. I removed it. Looks like several of the early milestones are included in the History section already. -Fnlayson 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of F/A-18As for US use

The Boeing Milestones page has a total of 380 F/A-18A models produced for US use. The wiki article had 371 from AirToAirCombat.com. The article also stated that nine F/A-18As were used in the flight systems development. I've changed the number to the Boeing statistic. I've also changed the statement to After a production run of 380 F/A-18As (including the nine assigned to flight systems development) however this is an assumption about the inclusion of the nine and probably should be removed. Does anyone know the actual connection between the 380 and 371 references? - Ctbolt 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why the flight systems ones should not count in production numbers. Are they the initial planes used for flight testing and so forth? -Fnlayson 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing Milestones

To help out, here are the Boeing Milestones that are already referenced:

• May 2, 1975 - The U.S. Navy selects McDonnell Douglas Corporation as the prime contractor for development of the F-18 strike fighter.
• Sept. 13, 1978 - The U.S. Navy's F-18 Hornet makes its public debut during rollout ceremonies in St. Louis, Mo.
• Nov. 18, 1978 - The F-18A Hornet makes its first flight, taking off from Lambert International Airport with McDonnell Aircraft chief test pilot Jack Krings at the controls.
• Jan. 16, 1979 - The first F-18 is flown to the Naval Air Test Center in Patuxent River, Md., for continued flight testing.
• Nov. 3, 1979 - the F-18 completes its first sea trials after the third Hornet makes 32 successful launches and landings aboard the aircraft carrier USS America.
• December 1979 - The first F-18B makes its maiden flight.
• April 1980 - The first production F-18, Hornet number 12, is delivered to the U.S. Navy.
• Oct. 25, 1982 - Canada becomes the first international customer when the first CF-18 Hornet is delivered to the Canadian Forces Air Command.
• December 1982 - The U.S. Navy officially redesignates the Hornet the F/A-18 to emphasize its dual role capabilities as both an air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical aircraft.
• Jan. 7, 1983 - The F/A-18 Hornet officially enters U.S. operational service with U.S. Marine Corps squadron VMFA-314 at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Ca.
• October 1983 - The first Hornet is delivered to a U.S. Navy operational squadron.
• Oct. 29, 1984 - The first F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force.
• Nov. 22, 1985 - The first EF-18 for the Spanish Air Force is delivered.
• March 10, 1986 - The U.S. Navy selects the F/A-18 Hornet as the official aircraft of the Blue Angels flight demonstration team.
• November 1986 - The first F/A-18 Hornet squadron arrives in Japan to prepare for deployment aboard USS Midway.
• February 1987 - The 100th Canadian CF-18 is delivered.
• April 1987 - The 500th Hornet is delivered.
• September 1987 - First delivery of an F/A-18C/D.
• Sept. 3, 1987 - The F/A-18C makes its first flight.
• Jan. 22, 1988 - The 380th and final F/A-18A for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is delivered, accepted by VMFA-312.
• May 6, 1988 - The F/A-18D makes its first flight.
• Oct. 3, 1988 - Switzerland's Federal Military Department announces plans to purchase 34 Hornets, armament, spares and support, a contract worth an estimated $1.9 billion.
• Nov. 14, 1989 - The first production night attack F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to Patuxent River, Md.
• April 10, 1990 - The F/A-18 Hornet fleet surpasses one million flight hours.
• May 11, 1990 - The U.S. Marine Corps rolls out the night attack F/A-18D at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Ca.
• Jan. 17, 1991 - During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. Navy pilots Lt. Nick Mongilio and Lt. Cmdr. Mark Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission. While going out from USS Saratoga in the Red Sea to bomb an airfield in southwestern Iraq, an E-2 warns them of approaching MiG-21 aircraft. The Hornets shoot down two MiGs and resume their bombing run before returning to Saratoga.

The wiki text is an exact copy of this. It wasn't an exact copy. It has been reworded more.

• April 18, 1991 - The 1,000th F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.
• Oct. 8, 1991 - The first Kuwait Air Force F/A-18 Hornet is delivered.
• May 6, 1992 - Finland's Ministry of Defense approves the purchase of 64 Hornets, a program worth approximately $3 billion.
• Feb. 10, 1993 - An F/A-18 Hornet becomes the 10,000th jet aircraft built by McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis when it is delivered to the U.S. Navy.
• June 7, 1995 - The first F-18 Hornet for the Finnish Air Force is delivered.
• Jan. 25, 1996 - The first F/A-18 Hornet for the Swiss Air Force is delivered.
• December 12, 2002 - The F/A-18 Hornet fleet surpasses five million flight hours.
• August 2000 - The final delivery of an F/A-18, an F/A-18D Hornet, is delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.
• May 25, 2005 - The F/A-18 Hornet lands on the French carrier De Gaulle for the first time, during joint exercises which were part of Multi-National Maritime Exercise (MNME) 05-1.

- You are most welcome to edit the above list. - Ctbolt 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Related aircraft

• I'm wondering about F-5 and T-38 listed in the Related developement section. Seems like these are pre-YF-17 Cobra designs and should not be listed here. But maybe I'm missing something. What about it? -Fnlayson 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see leaving the F-5, though it is questionable. Take out the T-38 though, because it's not a fighter, and hence does not have as direct a relationship as with the F-5. Probably take ou the Hal Tejas also, as they aren't relly comparable. - BillCJ 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention?

Isn't there an aircraft naming convention that suggests the name of this article get changed to "Boeing F/A-18"? --JJLatWiki 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Boeing name really only applies to the Super Hornets. That's all I have on this now... -Fnlayson 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with layson here. Boeing, though the major contractor for the hornet now, had nothing to do with the design or manufacturing of the legacy hornet. If you want to add a company name it should be the defunct McDonald DouglasStanleywinthrop 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The manufacturer doesn't matter for the article name anyway. For US military aircraft, the policy is not to include the manufacturer's name if there is a popular name, e.g. Hornet, Super Hornet. -Fnlayson 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia Version

I removed the dubious claim that HUG 2.2 upgrades Aussie hornets to "beyond E standards". Not only is this not true, it just doesn't make sense. Anyone who wants to revert to this claim will need to provide a source.Stanleywinthrop 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Combat History: MiG-25 Foxbat shooting down an F/A-18

Why is there no mention of the MiG-25 shooting down an F/A-18? As far as I know, this is a confirmed kill that even the USAF admits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.239.184 (talk • contribs)

When/Where? Can you provide documented sources of this? AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That happened on the Gulf War. The article already covers that in the Combat service section but does not mention MiG-25. -Fnlayson 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the MiG-25 article. Why not here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.243.123 (talk) 13:20:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there is a reference, then please include it. If not, it is an unsourced claim and does not meet the qualifications of being included in Wikipedia (for the love of all that is holy, please don't use Wikipedia as a source. Use something far more reliable [/sarcasm]). But in all seriousness, just get a reliable reference and include it. I'm perfectly happy to put it in and I'm a military aviator. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt on what downed the F/A-18 in question. An USAF report says it was downed by a MiG-25, but a Navy report says it was a surface to air missile. I don't think it's significant enough to mention what downed the Hornet in this article anyway. -Fnlayson 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) and the CIA says it was downed by an air-air missile from Iraqi aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Navy wants to make it sound better and the Air Force is trying to be realistic.

A surface to air missile seems far more likely, the Mig-25s deployed by Iraq rarely had effective air to air armaments equipped, if they had any at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.91.54 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a cover up. Every official source is saying that this F-18 was shot down by a MiG-25 [2] also acig.org which at the beginning was skeptical is admitting it was downed by a MiG-25. I'm updating this (very important) information. Do you know why important? becouse covering this, will not give the sad exchange rate of the F-18 (a miserable 2-1)... maybe this is the reason of the cover up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.250.245 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No cover up. The article currently states the F/A-18 was shot down. To properly cover the possibles would put undue weight on it. Besides, what shot it down is not that important to the F/A-18. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This is very important: every human product is proven when it is used, also a combat aircraft - and a combat aircraft is used in wars.

One F/A-18 was lost to an Iraqi MiG-25. So this is a very important information for the F/A-18, becouse this is its history!!! This is more important than any info on export orders or all the info in the "Entry into service" paragraph (just to say one). I'm always frustrated with the cover up of western aerial losses: when admitted they are attributed as default to "non combat causes", if someone insists they are listed as unknown, if proven by facts that it was enemy fire, they are attributed to a generic "ground fire" at best. This is what happened with the F-1 Mirage shot down by an Angolan MiG-23, with the Beeka valley air combat, with the "friendly fire" incident with the Pakistani F-16 in '80s, with the F-15E down in OIF (crashed in the ground during a low level mission in Tikrit (heavy defended) area), with the F-14 in OIF (engine flameout while performing a bombing run, so unlucky?), with all the list of helicopters in OIF and OEF (80% of them are listed as "non combat"!, with Major Gilbert's F-16 in 2006 (crashed while engaging enemy forces due to "pilot disorientation" - maybe disoriented by a 7,62 AK bullet in the chest, or a SA-7 in the engine?), with the 2 F-16s in OIF in summer 2007 (pilots were not able to take off anymore in that month... strange), with the NATO F-16 shot down by a Serbian SA-3 battery in 1999 (until the pilot released an interview to F-16.net, it was listed as engine flameout while dodging enemy fire!). Unfortunatly as in the Gilbert's case, for this F-18 we will not have the luck of the pilot speaking about his mission so the cover up is very simple (note that in most of the above mentioned "incidents" the pilot or crew died).

In contrast to this the "russian products" always perform bad in western articles, even when they fight agaist other "russian weapons". Ethiopian Su-27 in 1999-2000 (still fighting to have at least the sentence "around 5 MiG-29 shot down", while the article just wrote "maybe two, but not confirmed"), all the reverses of above, the soviet helicopter losses in Afghanistan (the stinger was not the main reason, it brought down just few dozens, the most were shot down by heavy machine gun fire, SA-7 and RPG-7).

Wikipedia is going to write history (take a look on how many newspapers, forums and other indipendent internet addresses use wikipedia as source). Already now, people are taking its words as law. Covering this, you will take out an information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.250.245 (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The words below were the following things in the Popular Culture section.

Hornets make frequent appearances in action movies and military novels. The Hornet was featured in the film Independence Day.

• Jane's survey sims US Navy Fighters (1994)
• Jane's Fighters Anthology (1997)
• Jane's F/A-18 Simulator

Yet again please read before adding something involves with popular culture. Those were fiction and video game appearances and I don't see it notable.(TougHHead 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

FLight Sims are usually permittable, but games are usually not. THe Hornet plays a notable, if exaggerated, role in ID4. While not quite on par with the F-14 and Top Gun, it's been accepted as notable here for some time. There's no problem questioning the appearances tho, and if you get a consensus here to remove them, then it will be done. - BillCJ 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't put the F-22 Raptor as appeared in the Fighters Anthology means neither the F-18 Hornet.(TougHHead 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Woo, not that simple. One could have a major role in that and the other a minor one. The minor one probably would not be notable enough to list. The F-22 was still in development in '97 as well. -Fnlayson 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I look at it is the way it has been and should be looked at for a long time; if the particular aircraft defined the movie/game/book in question (say, the AH-64 Apache in the movie Firebirds) then it is to be included. However, in the majority of cases it is just a placeholder aircraft or one of a selection of many, and could have been left out to little detriment of the original product, then it's a waste and a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. So far I can't think of one movie/book/game where the F/A-18 had a notable role. Independance Day could've just as easily used an F-16, or F-14, or Su-33 if it came down to it, and it would've made no notable difference to the movie; it was a placeholder aircraft representing just that; a combat aircraft. Few in the auidiance could've even given its designation, many probably knew it only as 'The good guys fighter jet', or something abbysmal like that.

Secondly, I'm sorry to say that Flight Simulators are video games. Don't try and hold them above that, they may be more complicated, but they're still generally used for entertainment purposes rather than actual military application (with a couple notable exceptions), and in those select military simulators, one particular aircraft rarely takes a leading role. 75.149.203.222 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Export info

What about moving this export info to either the Operators section or maybe Operational history section? I like the way similar info is presented in the C-17 Globemaster III article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish Air Force is mentioned as a user of the F/A-18 in the "Non-US users" section but is missing from the "Operators" list. --Death Bredon (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I split off the section, but didn't get Finlad added to the new list. Sorry about that! - BillCJ (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea. I added that earlier. Thanks for bringing that up. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Landplane?

I've noticed pictures of Swiss F/A-18's with tailhooks extended, which struck me as odd. I don't think Switzerland operates aircraft carriers. Aren't export versions intended for land-based use stripped of their carrier-specific features? Drutt (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of the exported ones are land-based. Tailhooks are for emergency landings for land-based aircraft. The first entry at F-15 Eagle#Notable accidents and incidents describes a use of tailhook. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Partially correct. All export versions are land based, but they retain carrier capability. That is, the US could buy back a Kuwaiti, Ausi, or Swiss (etc.) Hornet and put it to carrier use without structural modification. Avionics and other mods might be required. Bottom line: the tailhook on a Swiss FA-18 would do just fine trapping on a carrier. An F15 hook/trap would finish that bird...E2a2j (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information here. Drutt (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

With the Swiss air force the use of the tail hook is considered a standard practice when landing in wet (soaked) runway conditions. Therefore all airbases operating the FA-18 including Emmen (depot maintenance facility) are equipped with arrester cable gear located 1/3 rd down the runway length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.219.41 (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally the only modofication from US Navy standard is swaping the carrier landing system for a conventional ILS and the nuclear weapons capability is not installed. Down here in Australia we removed the catapult launch bar from the nose gear and it caused an ossilation that could become a bit alarming. All Australian hornets now have a fake launch bar that has the same mass but the hydraulics to operate it are not installed.

Backseater controls

I had this question after seeing this in the F-15E Strike Eagle article:

Unlike earlier two-place jets (like the F-4 Phantom II and Navy's F-14 Tomcat), whose "backseater" lacked flying controls, the back seat of the F-15E cockpit is equipped with its own stick and throttle so the WSO can take over flying if necessary, albeit with reduced visibility.

Can the backseater on a F-18 take flight controls as well? I've also asked this question at Talk:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hornet was designed without the need for a backseater's help. The 2 seat variants are generally trainers and should include back seat flight controls. This site says the B and D models have dual controls. Seems like night attack D model has some flight controls removed. Will have to check books on that and the F model. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All two seat Hornets (B, D, and F) can be configured either with or without a stick and throttle control. Those used as trainers (like at the Fleet Replacement Squadrons) almost always have stick and throttle installed. "Missionized" aircraft have the aft stick and throttles removed and the foot pedals are "locked". Instead, there are hand controllers installed on either side of the cockpit that are used to operate the weapons systems. Conversion takes a full maintenance shift. In any case, WSOs are not trained/expected EVER to "take over flying if necessary". If a pilot is in the trunk, flying it/landing it, etc. is not a problem. E2a2j (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex USN Hornets

Does anyone know of the fate of the ex-USN Hornets in the Spanish AF? Have any of them been lost? E2a2j (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of the 24 one has been lost on 11FEB03 (C.15-91 former 161926) all the rest but one are operated by 462 Esc of Ala 46 at Las Palmas - Gando. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Milborne. E2a2j (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Other US variants

As I understand the development history, the RF-18 proposal by McDonnell Douglas was backburnered until the Boeing RF-18 Foxtrot ("Recce Rhino"), which uses a modular camera/radar set in lieu of the Gatling cannon and ammunition drum (Main Article: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet). It seems that slightly more information might be in order. Any Sources for a better briefing on the RF-18 Delta's intended capabilities here (viz., #Other US variants), as well as a wikilink to the proper section of the F/A-18E/F article (assuming that article has a decent briefing on the USMC's RF-18F, OF-18F and, to a lesser extent, EF-18G)? Good work on the OF-18D brief, by the way. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read about that. As I recall many of the RF-18 proposal ideas were used in the night attack F/A-18D (RC) that US Marines use. Can't remember if the cannon is removed on -18D (RC). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Recon variants from the Jenkins book are listed in the Variants section now. Don't have anything on the OF-18 variant. The EA-18G Growler is briefly described and linked in the Super Hornet section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

F-18L empty weight

The reduction in weight of 7700 lb seemed high to me and checking in Mike Spicks "Designed for the Kill" it mentioned a reduction in empty weight of only 2230 lb which sounds more reasonable. Does anyone know the correct figure? Upset Nerd (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not say empty weight. The 7,700 lb is the difference is in max takeoff weights. 3,500 lb of that is less fuel storage. This has been clarified in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet

The CF-18 Hornet has its own article. We do not need to duplicate the information here, especially in the Operators section. I know Canada was listed here for a long time, but I've removed it as it began to grow. Listing the number in service is one thing, but we certainly don't need to list the bases too. If this continues, we will have no need for the CF-18 Hornet article, and I will seriously condiser making a merge proposal, as we don't need two articles with the same info. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair move. I may have added or reworded that CF entry with the link to try and point readers to the CF-18 article. You can't (whatever)-proof things around here. :( Wish editors would put these efforts into the CF-18 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for photo please

I have a photo from the rear of a FA-18 which I took at Whenuapai air base in New Zealand last weekend. It is a good one because the interior of both engines are clearly seen (used flash). Usually they are just black holes. I think it would be good on this page, but don't know where it should slot in. Anybody got any suggestions please I am just a brand new editor to Wikipedia so until I get a few more edits I won't be able to upload it. Greenkeeper (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's an Australian Hornet, the image would be good to add to the Australia section under Operational history. It might be go better in the Design section, but that section is a bit crowded with images now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Fnlayson. I appreciate for your response. The design section has some very good pics, but they are not really about design/configuration. I think my pic should replace the one showing the high g pull, but where to move that to? I will go ahead and add it, and move the other. It can always be restored if people think I have stuffed up. Greenkeeper (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the picture to the Design section because it does show design and it is very clear. It meant I needed to move one of the in-flight pictures down a little bit, but hopefully the article still looks ok. Darn, forgot the tildes again. Greenkeeper (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see you moved it to beside the engine text. OK Greenkeeper (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel that image should be next to the engine paragraph.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Details of McDonnell Douglas/Northrop split

Is their any reason that this huge chunk of text can be removed and just leave the part about the two companies spliting right before it, maybe leave something about the parts manufacturing being split. This seems way to detailed for this kind of article and adds very little in my opinion.

"On the F-18, the two companies agreed to split the parts manufacture evenly, with McDonnell Douglas completing the final assembly, representing ~20% of the work. McDonnell Douglas built the wings, stabilators, and forward fuselage; Northrop built the center and aft fuselage and vertical stabilizers. McDonnell Douglas was the prime contractor for the naval versions.[6] Northrop would become the prime contractor and take over final assembly for the F-18L land-based version which Northrop hoped to sell on the export market." Be Bold In Edits (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It is important to the history of the fighter, since it started out as the Northrop YF-17. Also, relevant to Northrop's F-18L version. Just fine as is... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Speicher

2 F/A 18's were shot down... though it was unknown by what, though many people believe that (since he was shot by a AA-10 or 11) it was a MiG-25 to kill him, can someone please at least acknowledge that fact.

Regards Sukhoi.pakfa (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Better covered at Scott Speicher or see Talk:F/A-18 Hornet\Archive 1#Combat History: MiG-25 Foxbat shooting down an F/A-18 for past discussion here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Scott Speicher's body has been found and identified. I've changed the article to simply state this; the whole "missing/cpatured" issue is covered in his bio article. The Navy was right all along! Hmmm. - BilCat (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dec 2008 Crash

What about the the crash that happend Dec 8 2008 around noon in california? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington95 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's right in the Accidents section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And at 2008 San Diego F-18 crash - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

0I applogize Washington95 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the guidline for including accidents? Obviously, there have been many - some more notable than others. I understand why the Miramar crash is there (lots of news coverage/separate wiki article about crash), but why is the Fallon accident there? Just wonnerin'.E2a2j (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There are guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH#Military (M) now. If you mean the Finnish F-18D crash, I agree that does not qualify as notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I was talking about the 13 June 2008 Nevada crash. Not partucularly notable. Thanks.E2a2j (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• That one seems notable since it involved 2 aircraft colliding. -fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Refueling image

I noticed that this article is missing one of the "staple" images we have on military aircraft articles: aerial refueling. It's got that NASA video, and a ground refeuling image, but if consensus say we want more, there is a great PD closeup at http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/_layouts/imagemeta.aspx?image=http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/PublishingImages/20050711-M-0502A-006.jpg, not to mention that there aren't too many images on the article of the dual-seat models. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re designation

Please excuse the flagrant ignorance, but what does the "A" in F/A 18 designate? I (and probably many others) would appreciate/ recommend an explicit statement explaining that in the opening section. From the context I can assume that the "A" stands for "All weather," but I would be more comfortable with an explicit statement defining this. Thanks. Olan7allen (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The A in F/A-18 is for attack (ground attack) under the 1962 tri-service designation system. The Hornet was originally to have F-18 (fighter) and A-18 (ground attack) versions, but avionics advancements allowed them to be joined in one version. See the bottom of the "Redesigning the YF-17" section for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

F-18 cat shot video really a Super Hornet?

Video of F/A-18 taking off

Should the video be moved to the Super Hornet page? I suspect the video is really of a Super Hornet taking off for the following reasons:

1. The tail markings appear to be those for VFA-41, "The Black Aces". This is supported by the file description which indicates the video was taken in May 2009; VFA-41 was indeed deployed on Nimitz at that time.
2. VFA-41 flew the Super Hornet during the May 2009 timeframe.
3. If you look closely it appears the engine intakes are the rectangular type on the Super Hornet, not the circular ones on the original. The shadows in the video make it a little hard to tell.
4. It just looks .... bigger.

Quickfoot (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the rectangular SH intakes and also there are 3 pylons on the near side wing. The legacy Hornet has 2 pylons. I moved the video link to the E/F article. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

F-18L

IMHO the F18L paragraph does not belong in the development section since it was neither a precursor to the F/A 18 nor a production plane in it's own right. I think it is reasonable to leave it in the export variant section, but perhaps it also needs it's own page? Chalky (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of this was covered in the "Details of McDonnell Douglas/Northrop split" section above. The -18L section is in the right place historically/chronologically to cover the program development. McDonnell Douglas buying rights to the F/A-18 is covered there. So seems fine to me. By the way the F-18L text was in another article, then was merged here because it was very short. -fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Aging fighter jet gets new lease on life

Possible reference of interest: "Aging fighter jet gets new lease on life", Los Angeles Times, 4 February 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.84.30 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is mostly about ordering more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Common name rule

Is "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F/A-18 Hornet" is probably more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F/A-18 Hornet", rather than "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What defines 'notable' in regard to accidents for military aircraft?

Perhaps the heading title should be changed to 'notable accidents' or 'fatal accidents' (seems that might be your criteria- hmmm) Questioning since there doesn't seem to be a solid understanding of what makes an accident notable to the moderator of this article. The last 2 major class A mishaps of this type have been for engine maintenance issues (a very rare set of circumstances on their own, let alone in the same squadron) yet justification requirements for listing the latest accident seem to be shifting and arbitrary. It meets the WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft_articles guidelines. Let it go. (98.112.135.88 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Still perplexed regarding accident section moderation

I'm finding it difficult to NOT continue to question the qualifications of the moderator of the accidents section of this article. After continued changes to the posting regarding the March 30, 2011 Stennis engine explosion mishap rendering the listing less accurate and questioning it's notability, now there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not this accident was the same squadron as the December 2008 San Diego accident that killed 4 civilians on the ground. The reasoning given is that the references given do not explicitly state that 'it was the same squadron'. In fact cited references to both accidents clearly state the squadron was VMFAT-101. One of them spells it out as MARINE CORPS FIGHTER ATTACK TRAINING SQUADRON 101. I expect as a moderator on this article you have the experience to know these are one in the same. Are you looking for more than this?(98.112.135.88 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Read this talk page and its archive page(s). The Consensus on this article's talk page and other articles is that most crashes and accidents involving military aircraft are non-notable. These are not large airliners after all. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you offering as compromise (as defined on the consensus page)? Could you point out where in this article's talk page or it's archive that mentions a notability standard? I'm not sure of the validity of comparing this article to large airliners. This article is about military aircraft. Shouldn't notability be related to context? I would agree this would not be notable for the Aviation accidents and incidents article, but this article is about the specific aircraft type involved in this accident. Different standard of notability for sure.

In general, I'm still wondering why the gestapo edit tactics. Are we hurting for server space or something to the point that adding this small item is compromising some standard? If in the course of time the notability of this accident fades and diminishes, perhaps revisit the issue but for now it doesn't seem to be taking anything away and it is giving the user more information. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia?(98.112.135.88 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

Just to clear up one point this article does not have a moderator or similar, all the actions and changes are by consensus of all editors. The fact that the addition of the Stennis accident was challenged is in an indication that at least one or more editors do not think we should include it. Rightly this was raised on this talk page where the onus is on the person wanting to add content is to gain a consensus. Fnlayson has already stated that military aircraft accidents are not normally notable, a reflection of the current thinking and practice on such articles. It is up to you to convince other editors that this accident is notable enough to be included. The F/A-18 has had lots of accidents and aircraft losses and more than 20 fatal non-combat accidents, but as a military aircraft this happens and we cant list every loss in an aircraft article. Really it has to have hit something important or killed somebody important to get a mention, although accidents that show a trend of a major failure in the aircraft type may make the mark, although that may be more of a summary of such events. Some aircraft articles have a separate List of accidents and incidents page and more info is normally allowed on them, including fatal accidents and aircraft destroyed. So unless you can convince other editors that this is more than just another non-fatal accident it should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make regarding the editing was that Fnlayson was acting as sole authority and defacto moderator, and that a consensus of one by convincing this single user with an apparently shifting agenda was the apparent requirement.

To the real issue at hand, this is a repeated major accident of the same aircraft type and squadron linked to engine maintenance issues. While no loss of life, it is one of the most significant accidents of this aircraft type yet that didn't involve an actual crash. The circumstances of this mishap are more unusual and therefore notable than even the typical crash with loss of crew mishap. There doesn't seem to be a lot of competition for notability for this particular aircraft type, so in that context this mishap qualifies for mention in my opinion. Applying a wider standard of all of aviation, this is not headline news and as such it would be difficult to make a case for notability on that level. But in my opinion that would be a misplaced standard across to broad of a context to be appropriate. 98.112.135.88 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Almost time to put down the stick on this. It's been a month since I removed the entry once and tagged it after the text was re-added. If media outlets were making your case this accident surely would be notable, but that has not happened yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought by now you would have taken your own advice and recused yourself from further comment on this issue. Let's focus on building consensus, instead of arbitrarily removing content without consensus. Your input to this article is appreciated and the Design section is no doubt the better for it, but the users who care one way or the other would perhaps be better served if you didn't apply your agressive editing to the Accidents section.

Naval Aviation operational experience is evidently under represented within the wikipedia community, and solely relying on the media to report factual details of this sort of trend or information is wishful thinking and would result in a far less effective wikipedia if applied to all articles. It seems to me that is one of the major reasons why we are here, to provide information and insight as Subject Matter Experts to help better inform the general public. As is no doubt evident by the passage of time since my last entry I had pretty much put this bed, but I wanted to respond to MilborneOne's post and make a case for inclusion based on a more specific notability standard.

Which brings me to my final question/point: Can you link or point to a notability standard for aviation accidents and/or more specifically military aviation accidents by type that is clearly defined in writing? 98.112.135.88 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just need to avoid getting into original research/synthesis territory with this... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "the Navy was skeptical that an aircraft with one engine and narrow landing gear could be easily or economically adapted to carrier service" Such a statement needs a good reference - as is sounds like original research as the Navy didn't appear to have a problem with the F8U, F11F, or A-7 (which the F-16 or F-18 was expected to replace). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't provide you with a reference other than my years of experience in naval aviation, but I can try to explain the way US naval aviation doctrine shifted and moved away from single engine or narrow landing gear designs for their aircraft. The aircraft you mentioned, as well as the A-4 Skyhawk are all excellent aircraft that excel in their performance characteristics and mission achievement. But in the 60s after analyzing mishap data it was apparent that single engine aircraft had much higher loss rates than twin engine, mostly due to losing an engine during over water flight providing no suitable emergency landing other than a water ditch, which results in a total loss of the aircraft.

The narrow landing gear issue showed up as a significant contributor to carrier landing mishaps, due to the inherently less stable stance compared to wider landing gear designs.

The F-14, A-6 and F-18 are examples of newer generation aircraft these design requirements were applied to. The F-16 is an excellent aircraft for Air Force use, but the narrow gear and single engine make it unsuitable for carrier landings and primarily over water operations. This is probably the best example of why the Air Force and the Navy continue to have divergent design requirements for their aircraft.

I can't point to a publicly available single document or a collection of documents that can be used as a good reference, but the evolution of naval aircraft design if analyzed closely and the absence of any modern naval aircraft that don't meet these objectives should help to verify this is not original research by a contributor. 98.112.135.88 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"The Hornets shot down two MiGs and resumed their bombing run, each carrying four 2,000 lb bombs, before returning to Saratoga. Mongilio and Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission."

This statement in the article seems doubtful. What about B-17's and the like in WW2 shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft enroute to Germany? Assuredly at least one of those got to their targets after shooting down an opponent, let alone the thousands of dive bombers, torpedo bombers, carpet bombers etc. that saw air to air action during WW2.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its meant to be f/a-118 piolets to do that. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This statement is extraordinary, but it was only supported by a website from Boeing. Boeing is not objective enough to support this statement which is highly unlikely, considering the great number of fighter-bombers in WWII, and bombers with gunners, etc. I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• That should probably the first fighter pilots to do that, but I have not seen it specifically mentioned in my F/A-18 books. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Even should you look only at fighter pilots, it is likely that a fighter carrying a bomb or two, on a mission to attack ground targets, might have achieved an aerial victory during WWII, and also completed its original mission. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You should take into consideration that WWII attack aircraft like SBD's and TBF/TBM's and fighter bombers did not have the power to weight ratio of modern jet fighters or ranged weapons like Missiles. A aircraft carrying bombs or drop tanks was at a severe performance disadvantage in maneuvering ability and speed. It was common when sighting the enemy or when ambushed to dump everything under the wing and turn to engage the enemy. If you didnt you were at serious risk of being shot down. Anlushac11 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a question?

How do you create the blank maps to put what came from what country? Mickman1234 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I don't format this correctly. Just wondering if there is a reason one squadron would choose a single-seater versus a two-seater. Are they for different mission requirements? For example the USMC designated the F/A-18D two-seater for all weather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.93.19 (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Life support

I can't find much in the article about life support, particularly breathing gas. I understand that, unlike USAF jets which mix oxygen with ambient air and enrich the mix with altitude, US Navy aircraft deliver 100% oxygen all the time. Is this true of all F-18, or is in configurable? I have also seen the claim that the 100% oxygen delivery system was engineered in case the carrier's catapult failed and the jet got thrown into the sea. For this reason also there is no seat-separation in an underwater ejection and the oxygen bottle is carried as part of the ejection seat. I wonder does anyone have a source for these claims? Breathing 100% oxygen can lead to Atelectasis, but I don't think this has ever been reported on a jet, has it? With the latest F-22 problems being widely debated, I have also seen the claim that 100% oxygen results in a "fighter pilot cough". Is this true and if so why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the F/A-18 like the F-22 uses a standard OBOGS (On-board Oxygen Generation System) which as a fairly common system and not unusual to the F/A-18 so is not worth a mention. I dont think any OBOGS can deliver more than 95% oxygen. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my questions are too general for this one particular article, and I suspect that 95% has been widely interpreted as 100%, but are you saying that everything else is just fiction? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum~!

---

There is some prominent Charlie Sheen quotes, "I'm an F-18 bro" and "Most of the time- and this includes naps- I'm an F-18." I believe this is in reference to this aircraft, but I'm not completely certain. Can someone verify this and if so, can we include it in popular appearances in the media? Reference: http://www.livethesheendream.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.27.113.51 (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, suggest you keep the un-encyclopedic input elsewhere other than here. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides, there's no such plane as an F-18; there is an F/A 18 though... Kyteto (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Closing this thread, stupid IP editor was trying to promote his stupid site, thinking that it was a funny idea and forgetting that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finnish/Swiss Hornets and A-G capability

Does anyone have any confirmed information about the A-G features delivered with Swiss and Finnish Hornets? What bothers me are these sentences in the Finnish Air Force article: "It lacks certain avionics, target acquisition and weapon control features, limiting its ground attack capability. The variant is also used by the Swiss Air Force."

As far as I know, the Finnish Hornets are for the most part pretty much standard. They for example even retain the launch bar which is completely useless without an aircraft carrier. I've never heard from a reliable source that there were actually any missing major features related to ground attack. And by major features I mean something that is normally integrated in the aircraft instead of some removable pod that can be bought and added at any time if needed. Only in recent years have I seen talk about a "Finnish variant" of the Hornet.

It is of course well known that both air forces originally intended using Hornets only for air defense, but were there actually any technical restrictions or was it only decided not to buy A-G weapons and targeting pods? I remember reading that originally Swiss Hornets had slimmer pylons capable of carrying only A-A weapons but Finnish Hornets had the standard pylons from the start. -Khilon (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I understood that USA had been unwilling to sell modern guided Air to Ground bombs (can't remember the exact name) to Finland since they're not a NATO country. Maybe the capability to launch them is present at least in some degree but there's no ordnance, just remember reading something about that from a Finnish news paper or even a Finnish army news paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.36.23 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Finland they got these ok: [3]? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

intro

The 1/3 of the intro is dedicated to the E/F which btw has its own article. Intro is supposed to be a summary of the current topic and not of another article. The last third should be focused instead of a career summary ( fought in x wars and will be replaced by whom ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated USN squadron status

I updated the information for which US squadrons have transitioned to the Super Hornet from the Legacy Hornet. spook498~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.49.31 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

side by side comparison A&C vrs. E and C&D vrs. F

To the best of _MY_ (unverified) knowledge, the main difference between the A&B vrs. C&D (discarding the one vrs. two position cockpits) is that the A&B have OVAL air intakes, whereas the C&D have "diamond" or semi-rectangular air intakes. But...

Does anyone know of a website where there is a comparison, either in text or images, the differences in APPEARANCES between the "A" vrs. "C", as well as the "B" vrs. "D"?
(i.e.: The differences of the "A" and "C" versus the "E" as well as the "B" and "D" versus the "F" are rather well know.)
I've had no such luck.
LP-mn (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
maybe http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

NO. My understanding is it is a lot more than just that. From the Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet "The Navy retained the F/A-18 designation to help sell the program to Congress as a low-risk "derivative", though the Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft. The Hornet and Super Hornet share many design and flight characteristics, including avionics, ejection seats, radar, armament, mission computer software, and maintenance/operating procedures." - Re- Finland - the United States Naval Institute Ships and Aircraft of the United States Navy - circa 1979 stated the aircraft would have different software for avionics depending upon mission - fighter or ground attack. I don't think it is that was as fielded - all have the same avionics - mission is simply based on weapons loaded. Perhaps for the Finland variants the software is "stubbed" to omit the support for ground attack weapons. In addition to retaining the designation, I thought that allowed the Navy to not have to provide Grumman the option to present another alternative to replace the F-14 with. Wfoj3 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the C/D to E/F changes are covered in the Super Hornet article. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Accidents

Very surprised that seven accidents should be removed, all at once in this edit, without any discussion, even if "the bar is higher" for military aircraft. Four of those accidents were fatal. How is one to compare the safety record between different fast jet types without at least comprehensive figures for fatal accidents over the lifetime of the aircraft? A small narrative can at least explain the circumstances of each. We're not talking about hundreds here, were talking 10 in total, seven of which have now been removed. That seems a rather big step without any discussion at all. What are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry should have explained it was discussed that this type of accidents were not notable at the F/A-18E article and this article was used as an otherstuff exists point. Fatal military accidents are not really notable unless they kill somebody notable, kill civilians on the ground, hit something important or otherwise notable, the ones listed were just not-notable. They are or should be listed in Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft and if the accidents and incidents were moved into a sub-article that normaly gets expanded to include all fatal accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, could you direct me (and any one else who might be interested) to that discussion? Generally, I tend to disagree. I think even a bare list would be better than nothing. Any reader coming here might fairly want to know how many fatal accidents this aircraft had suffered and (roughly) why. You think ten is such a huge total to describe? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Non-notable accidents was started after I challenged the addition of a non-notable accident in that article. The project consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents which says that military accidents are "mostly non-notable". How many fatal accidents is not something that is included in most military aircraft articles but if a reliable source could be found then I cant see why it cant be mentioned. The consensus although not written down tends to allow more freedom in an accident and incident sub-article like List of F-15 losses and any fatal accident is normally listed in the Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft series. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and background explanation. It still seems a bit odd that the project should conclude that military accidents are "mostly non-notable" when, as you say, any fatal accident is normally listed in Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. I guess the issue (for me) is that those lists are arranged chronologically rather than by type. The information is there, it's just not arranged in any particularly useful way. But I'm still rather unclear how one decides whether any particular (fatal) accident is worthy of inclusion in an article or not. And, of course, in terms of the aircraft development programme, non-fatal accidents may be just as significant as (if not more significant than) fatal ones, since the aircrew live to describe what happened - which can be invaluable in terms of diagnosis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion, all fatal accidents should be included in the article...and I think it's indefensible to imply accidents are notable only if "important" people are killed. The non-fatal accidents and detailed explanation of all accidents can be covered in specific articles, but I think we should at least mention all the fatal accidents in the article. After all, it's also a part of the general performance overview of the aircraft. Green547 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)