Thread 64179931

They're still the majority of carrier air complements and see the most action. They're also aesthetic and iconic, having featured in both Independence Day and Top Gun: Maverick.

>>64179931 (OP)
Let's see some gunslingers

>>64179931 (OP)
They're not talked about because everyone is still basedfacing about the F-14. F/A-18 is the thinking man's plane

It's 2025, only fifth gens matter. Countries that don't operate F-35s might as well not even exist. Hornets are just for dunking on the thirdest of the thirdies that don't even have air defenses.

It's not aesthetic. It's actually kind of ugly. It's a YF-17 that was fattened up to be the 18 and then fattened up again to be an 18E. The square intakes just don't work for me. I prefer the previous bug.

>>64179931 (OP)
They're cool and work but they don't have the sex appeal of the tomcat or lightning. They'll be appreciated more in 20+ years.

I don't like their tiny nozzles. Makes me really mad!

>>64180024
Tomfat and Fat Amy are both ugly as sin, Superbug looks like an X-wing by comparison.

>>64179931 (OP)
It passes under the people's radar because of the association with the original Hornet but it's actually the stealthiest 4.5th gen out there, excluding the j-20.

>>64179957
but the f-14 is so cool :(

>>64179971
I feel the opposite way. The YF-17 was a weird mutant F-5, the F-18 was an ugly duckling with weird proportions, the wings and body were too small, the nose too long, the exhausts too narrow. The F/A-18E however looks just right, it feels imposing and like its a proper air superiority fighter, the square intakes match the square wings, the cockpit frame has a full back and it looks strong. It would only improve if the engines were spaced apart further so it looked even bigger from behind.

>>64179931 (OP)
Independence Day was the shit.

>>64179931 (OP)
>>64180159
How many variants are there of them? Boeing was trying to sell some form of F-18 to Denmark to replace F-16s, but we ended up with F-35s instead. I used to wonder about that. What does the F-18 and its modernized versions offer over the alternatives?

>>64179942
Can it take off from the deck with this loadout? 4 AIM-174Bs is just nutty.

>>64181505
It can get off the deck even with its max loading. However, it can carrier land with something like half max, IIRC, so aborting with a full load is very expensive and rarely risked.

>>64179931 (OP)
Mr Hornetstein sure has a big nose.

>>64179931 (OP)
Superbug was NOT in ID4. It was the Charlie Hornet. They had to use miniatures and static full scale models (hence Israeli Hornets in the Morse code scene) because they did not have DoD support due to Emmerich mentioning Area 51.

>>64183630
No coming home unless they splash some bandits heh

>They're also aesthetic
Sure, just an ugly aesthetic.

>and iconic, having featured in both Independence Day and Top Gun: Maverick.
That's what you care about?

>>64183695
Not as fugly as the chink planes

>>64180559
F18 has massive undercarriage for hard landings on carriers. It makes it great at operating from improvised landing strips. Also it's a two seater so you can split responsibilities between pilot and bomber and it has two engines which theoretically improves survivability after getting hit.

>>64180559
There's the one and two seater Super Hornets, the Growler (electronic attack/SEAD), and the Advanced Super Hornet upgrade or whatever they're calling it now. The Navy took some of the parts of the ASH, and the Aussies have (had?) interest in the program.

>>64179931 (OP)
Hornet and Super Hornet are a decent plane to replace Tomcat. They are the carrier borne multirole that is what Rafail trying to be. However when F35C arrived, it become tactically obsolete. Now you 3 balanced multirole fighters with moderate speed. In hindsight, super Tomcat would have been a better pair with F35c.

>>64183933
>Advanced Super Hornet upgrade or whatever they're calling it now
block III

>muh Tomcat
It was a fat pos maintenance queen and I'm glad it's gone

>having 3 IDENTICAL planes is good btw.
Stop posting, Dick Cheney.

>>64185186
This but unironically

>>64179942
can aim174 shoot down MRBM target though ?

>>64184991
The Bugs are obsolete, that's why the Navy got rid of them throughout the 2000s for the Superbugs. The Superbugs are definitely not obsolete, with the smallest RCS for a 4.5th gen and the airframe doubling as a platform for the Growler. They can still truck way more things that Amy can't, at least not internally, like the AIM 174-B and JASSM-ER.

Hornets are gay. Fighter Attack Guy = FAG.

>>64183680
IDK how procedures go, I doubt they're willing to jettison a 174B when it's classified top secret so they'll probably drop the external fuel tanks and the sidewinders instead.

>>64186012
it's possible. I'm sure they're more for J-20s or AWACS

>>64183910
the F/A-18B, D, F, & EA-18G are two seat, the F/A-18A, C, & E are single seat

>>64179931 (OP)
I try not to think about those hiv spreading furries in the commissioned ranks, dude.

>>64183657
That's where he stores his rotary cannon.

>>64179942
>I want my fighter to handle like an airliner

Germany was close to ordering Super Hornets + Growlers as Tornado replacement before Russia invaded Ukraine
would've been a poor choice even if the Luftwaffe livery would've probably looked cool on the Super Hornet

Why are they so underpowered? Engines are holding it back

>>64179931 (OP)
This picture fucking sucks, did they run a [icture through ai?

F-18 maintainer here, bumping to post more later

>>64180559
>How many variants are there of them?
Short rundown:
>-A
OG version. No night fighting capabilities, not all-weather. It was really a stopgap to work out some concepts as much as anything. Some of our export output was -As, to people like Kuwait. They were retired from active service in the late 1990s once there were enough late-model birds for everyone. The last couple squadrons' worth were out at training bases: around 1999-2000 we scanned them all, the fatigued airframes were retired and the rest were either sold to allies or upgraded to -C specs.
>-B
Training variant, two-seater. Kept in service much longer, had a spotty upgrade history to Deltas as parts were available and it seemed to matter. VFA-125 was still operating a few -Bs in 2006 when I got out.
>-C and -D
The "night fighter" variants. Had a heavy avionics overhaul, which dramatically lightened most of them and also hardened them against EMP and lightning strikes (a couple -As were lost to lightning and it led to a hilarious stopgap fix).
There are several "blocks" of -C and -D, based on whether or not they started life as a -A/-B or were manufactured before or after certain major avionics and equipment changes. I did some of the last conversions of -A to -C avionics.

The biggest advantage of Super Hornets is that they take SO much less maintenance hardware. There were multiple bespoke test systems and computers, one for each major branch of the avionics and sensor systems. The ones the -18 and -14 shared still ran on a proprietary version of FORTRAN, for fuck's sake. All of that got condensed into one modular system. My own shop went from 2 each of three different dedicated machines and three of the modulars to 10 of the new ones. Did wonders for our throughput.
(continued next post)

>>64179957
The Hornet is a logistician's plane. It replaced 4-5 different plane types and thus simplified maintenance, spareparts, training and even how to arrange planes on the carrier deck. The latter used to be a nightmare tetris puzzle with 6 different sized planes.

>>64194561
The other important thing about the Super Hornets is, it wasn't just the Tomcats they were replacing. One of the biggest reasons they got beefed up so much was to take over the duties of other birds
For example, three Growlers take up about the same hangar space as a pair of Prowlers did, with much better capabilities between them. -Fs have two men in the loop and more payload capacity than S-3 Vikings, so the sad old girls could finally retire from tankering and backup nuke duty. The Rhinos also get a shitload more use out of their FLIR/Laser pods and the WSO can drive tele-operated missiles independently, which was always a problem on the older Hornets.
Between the tanker and EWAR squadrons they freed up a good dozen aircraft's worth of dedicated spare parts space. Made it much, much easier to keep a couple full strike packages running if a couple of the key birds malfed out at the same time. And on top of that a lot of the gear was redesigned or moved around a little to make it easier to access and remove some nagging physical bugs the old planes had. You can flash in new software, but a bad motherboard placement...

>>64180559
Anyway. After the primary US variants, all of the export versions have slightly different setups. Officially they're just A/C/D models. None of them are fitted for carrier service, however, and not everyone got all the upgrades. Or software, especially stuff like Bitchin' Betty. Seems the Kuwatis had a problem with taking orders from a woman (even if she was telling them their engine was on fire). The Finns wanted to stick ALQs on their planes. And so on.

>>64183666
The Marines were flying Alphas and A+ at the time. Hell, the Black Knights still had them on both of my deployments. ID4 gets the cockpit layouts mostly correct for -A blocks but fucks up a few displays and uses a mix of -A and -Cs for exterior shots.

>>64194668
Even the legacy Hornet was a pretty versatile bird, my understanding is that's why the RAAF went for them. Interoperability with the USN/USMC was also probably a factor. They were really happy with them, apparently they had way more airframe lifespan left than was initially expected which helped out with covering for F-35 program delays.
Nowadays they've entirely retired the legacy bug, something like 70 F-35As and 20 Superbugs, a few of which are also already wired up to be converted into additional Growlers in case the current 12 aren't enough in the future.
Kind of interesting how similar the priorities of a smaller air force are to a naval air wing, it's all about getting the most versatility out of the same airframes as possible.

>>64179931 (OP)
My wife hornet

>>64186159
>>Disability decal.
>>Rainbow decal.
>>Pilot must be a gay black man.
The Fag Squadron has arrived!!!!!

The Super Hornet is the physical manifestation of the post cold war and war on terror decline of United States peer power projection.

Thanks to incompetent US navy procurement through the 2010s and now even the risk of the cancellation of FA-XX, this fatter F-18 will end up squaring off against Chinese 5th and potentially 6th gen aircraft as the bulk of the USN's fighter aviation.

The only good thing about it is that the cost savings may -may- have helped save a US CVN, that's it.
If the US navy doesn't procure FA-XX at pace, then it will be not insignificantly responsible for the breakout of the PRC into the Pacific and the general decline of the United states as a world power.

>>64186031
Plus a pretty good aesa. There aren’t really that many non-us aesa equipped fighters out there in 2025.

Because they suck donkey dongs, and never should have been conceived (or built).

>>64195684
Can't get over the fact that they simply canted the pylons for supposed separation issues which CFD indicated but actually proved wrong, yet didn't bother to un-cant the pylons.
The resulting drag turns it basically into a subsonic fighter, there isn't enough fuel on that shit heap for AB use ever.
It's literally the fighter jet you get if a corrupt bureaucracy doesn't give a fuck about what it produces and everyone just wants their bonuses and keep their job without raising a stink.
The F-18 is just such a fucking sad plane, manifestation of decline in an airframe ... I hate it so god damn much.

>>64195684
>>64195874
did F-14 fanboy hands write this

>>64195921
The F-14 was overly complicated, too fat, the engines sucked ass, and it probably turned a sizable portion of maintainers outright clinically insane, but it also did multiple jobs at once successfully.
It could dash out and reasonably intercept Tu-22's and Tu-95's threatening the fleet, it could turn and burn with MIGs, and it also could loiter and provide CAP and CAS and do strike. While being launched of a carrier, which is a major disadvantage.

The F-18 only works against ragheads, it is totally useless vs peer enemies.
The F-14 was a marvel of engineering, the F-18 is a mediocre piece of shit monument to decline of western civilisation.
The F-14 was simply the last time the US bothered having a dedicated A2A platform launched from a carrier.

While I appreciate the Super Hornet for the workhorse that it is, part of why its not talked alot is because its not a pretty looking jet.

>>64183666
>they did not have DoD support due to Emmerich mentioning Area 51
>"hey here's some alien tech and we need a space ship - fortunately the US government has just such a thing at Location CF after that weather balloon got shot down"
>"just get in the weather balloon and fly to their mothership"

Why is the DoD so autistic?

>>64197179
I'm not a fan of the Superbug, but the legacy bug is a prettier plane than the F-4, F-16, and F-35.

>>64179958
Lmao this retard doesn't growler

>>64194668
>Seems the Kuwatis had a problem with taking orders from a woman (even if she was telling them their engine was on fire)
Fucking lmao

>>64196764
>It could dash out and reasonably intercept Tu-22's and Tu-95's threatening the fleet, it could turn and burn with MIGs,
Once, maybe twice. Actually punching the tab on a -14 means you're going to need to rebuild the engines and/or spend a day or two working on the wings. They do not handle firewalling with any kind of dignity
>and it also could loiter and provide CAP and CAS and do strike.
Not very well. They had less time-on-station than even the OG Bugs, let alone Rhinos. They could neither carry nor control as many air-to-surface missiles, their electronics were stone knives and bearskins by the 1990s. The fucking map display was still using microfilm cartridges and an incandescent lightbulb on a rack and pinion system as a cursor for God's sake.

>>64197370
>They could neither carry nor control as many air-to-surface missiles, their electronics were stone knives and bearskins by the 1990s
didn't know about limited A2A missile capacity, but didn't Bugs actually end up basically searching for and vectoring cats onto targets in Desert Strom?

>>64197391
And in Afghanistan too. They straight-up didn't have IR and turning on night-fighting mode was vastly more involved than it should have been. The 'Cat's own laser pods were also constantly on the fritz, and parts stock for them was so low we were having to ship them back to depot-level for remanufacture half the time. Or chase harness faults, or spend 8 man-hours sitting at a bench with a multimeter and an o-scope going through a stack of 10% tolerance components while hand-doing the math to find the one that was in the right part of the spec window to balance out all the other tolerance-stacked garbage on the card. So.. yeah. The poor girls wound up being GBU horses, and it's not a job they're good at.

Kitties are pretty, I'll never say they weren't, and we all love Macross. But goddamn did the romance die for me when we were out on the water. So very glad I got sent to do -18s and test bench repair instead.

>>64197631
NTA but really fun to hear experiences from people with actual creds

>>64197370
>>It could dash out and reasonably intercept Tu-22's and Tu-95's threatening the fleet, it could turn and burn with MIGs,
>Once, maybe twice. Actually punching the tab on a -14 means you're going to need to rebuild the engines and/or spend a day or two working on the wings.

UTTER nonsense with no basis in reality whatsoever

>>64194605
>The Hornet is a logistician's plane.
Like anon said, "the thinking man's plane"

>>64198132
There's a huge difference between going as fast as the plane is normally supposed to go, and as fast as you can force it to go for as long as you can to intercept incoming bombers before they blow their wad at your CVBG. One of those is very, very bad for the plane and its engines.

>>64197179
I disagree but to each their own. I've always liked how stripped back both the legacy and superbug look. It's that F-5 DNA still showing through.

>>64198132
Anon there's a reason you don't use the burner 24/7 and it's not just fuel efficiency. It's the same reason you don't take an airframe's sustained G rating as an instruction. What a plane can do when it saves your life or someone else's, versus what it likes to do regularly, are very different things.
Unless you're flying a Blackbird, your plane isn't intended to be running with burners on constantly. The materials used aren't generally even designed to stay at the max theoretical temp for long.
Most things aren't even designed to allow you to push them that far to begin with, that's built in as a safety margin. But with military aviation, the expectation is that a pilot can be trusted with the ability to ask for 100% out of their plane because they know only to use it when a safety margin will mean death. Do not mistake this for a plane enjoying being pushed to those limits, or think it is something to be done casually. This has been true at least since the second world war.

>>64194605
>>64198217
the bean counter's plane

>>64179931 (OP)
They're just kind of there.

I think the super hornet looks good.

>>64197631
Man how old are you? The cats were gone by and large for a long time

>>64199448
This. And because of that, they’re FUCKING BORING. Just accept it. Not even Hollywood can make the Bug cool. Real big brain men with good taste go for the F-14 or the Phantom.

They didn't get to be involved in a single kino conflict. Even the F-16 has gotten up to cool shenanigans like dogfighting OV-10s over thirdie countries.
>desert storm
End of kino, actually.

>>64180159
j10c is better too

>>64188692
That was never close to actually happening. The defense minister just made the decision as a political move, knowing it'd be vetoed. It was to highlight how shitty German procurement is, so that something would get done.

>>64201301
average chinkshill reading comprehension level

>>64201157
Late 40s. Joined out of high school, my dad's been a database admin since I was three. I made the mistake of telling my boss "yes" my first day in the Fleet when he asked if I knew what FORTRAN was. So I got assigned to two of the testing systems that the Tomcats, OG Hornets, and Nighthawks all share. I shifted MOS to the newer hardware at the end of my first hitch. The instant I got deployed I wound up on Tomcat duty - Oceana didn't have enough warm bodies to send SEAOPDET, I had experience with the hardware, and ship's company wasn't enough to keep up with the operations pace.

..remember, you're here forever. God have mercy on us all.

>>64179958
Hornets are for slinging SM-6s from standoff range while F-35s and CCAs identify targets.

>>64186012
SM-6s were literally developed for missile defense.

>>64197706
literally 60% of why I come to /k/, and why I have always come to /k/
>t. oldfag since 06

>>64202344
>literally 60% of why I come to /k/, and why I have always come to /k/
>>t. oldfag since 06

lmao, you arent either,
absolutely no one (but me) posting on /k/ is from less than year 2022

ive been here since you were a grade schooler i bet
I have screenshots ive taken from this website that are old enough to drive, or at least have a learners permit

>>64202344
He's probably asking whether the airlaunch would be able to intercept an MRBM which I think should be possible if you hand it off to an Aegis link

>>64202648
meant to reply to>>64202333

>>64202333
>SM-6s were literally developed for missile defense.
yah from a ground launch

its an overweight hog in the air

>>64202668
baseless cope

>>64202668
AIM-174s are everything an AIM-54 ever wanted to be

>>64202668
It's literally got a first stage for ground launch, the same stage that was removed for the air version. It's more maneuverable than any soviet/chinese missile that's bigger than their AMRAAM copies.

>>64186031
They are also very new and not worn out to shit like the F-15C's or Hornets so there's no presing need to replace them.

>>64194561
Don't compare Super Hornets to original Hornets, Super Hornet is a full third bigger and heavier and is extensively redesigned so the two aircraft share superficial resemblance to each other at best.

>>64197631
Based and Akron-pilled.

>>64198724
Soooo Maverick is ... not realistic?

>>64193158
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-leslie-shook-the-voice-behind-boeing-f-a-18-super-hornets-bitchin-betty/

>>64202688
>>64202705
>>64202709
AIM-174B, which is basically just a ship lanuched Standard Missile 6 SAM which was slapped onto an aircraft pylon.
Despite weighing in at 890kg, it has only 240km range,
vs the chinese PL-15 @ 500kg/400km
even a lightweight european Meteor (190kg) has 200km range,
almost matching the AIM-174 B despite being 1/4th the size.
way short of the russian R-77 which sports 400km/510kg weight,

>>64202943
>AIM-174B, which is basically just a ship lanuched Standard Missile 6 SAM
which are more than capable of intercepting MRBMs

>>64202943
>way short of the russian R-77 which sports 400km/510kg weight,
Okay yeah, you're an ESL who has no idea what he's talking about. Learn how to use punctuation and capitalization.
Do you think the US needs to state the tippy top theoretical range of the missiles when it has no need to, as time and time again, American systems have underpromised and overdelivered? You can take the range of a surface launched SM-6 and do the maths to see that the range has been very conservatively stated for the AIM-174B. That is to say it goes very far.

The effective range of a missile is a function of arriving at an effective maneuverable energy state, or arriving slow and unable to maneuver. An SM-6/AIM-174B arrives on target at mach 3, while both Chinese and Russian missiles arrive at the '400km' spent, regardless if it has a two stage booster or not as it already used the second boost to get out that far. They serve as nothing more than an annoying and useless contact that keeps on spiking you.

>>64198414
There are dozens of stories from cat drivers talking about all casual going Mach 2+ with no regard for increased maintenance.
You are inventing non-existant problems.
Over-G is something they had to watch out for, but not speed, the engines are perfectly happy at Mach 2+.

>>64198724
The Bug simply doesn't have fuel to use burner and can't supercruise for shit with pylons on due to drag.
With practical range, it is a subsonic plane when loaded with anything with only theoretical supersonic capability, which in practice is unusable. It is a huge regression in performance.
Shut the fuck up you retard.

>>64202943
The AIM-174B definitely has more range than the PL-15, which does not have 400km range. People looked at the PL-XX program back in the day and thought it was the same project as the one that created the PL-15 but it ended up not being the case. The PL-15 has 300km max range at very high launch altitude (10-12km range) at mach 1.5 iirc. The AIM-174B almost definitely has higher range than 240km, as the SM-6 launched from a surface ship has that range and from what I remember the burn time (5 seconds) and fuel mass of the MK 72 booster only place the surface launched variant at about 12,000 feet and mach 1 before he Mk 104 rocket engine ignites. This means that at the very least a Super Hornet in position for long range fleet defense (25,000-35,000 feet and cruising near mach 1) is going to likely add at minimum a solid 66% to this range number. For reference, an AIM-120C launched at Mach 1.3 and 30,000 feet has close to double the range of the same missile launched at mach 1.3 at 10,000 feet. Being very conservative I'm going to take a guess that a 30k feet launched AIM-174B has a combat range over 400km

>>64203031
>Do you think the US needs to state the tippy top theoretical range of the missiles

Who cares what they state, the SM-6 booster is 680kg, 1500 fucking pounds of solid rocket fuel. It lobs the SM-6 several km higher than a bug could, and also well into the supersonic range.
Launching an SM-6 without a booster from a bug cuts the range a lot, obviously.
Also the flight trajectory has to be altered and the missile spends a lot more time in denser atmosphere which is logarithmic, so it eats into range hard. The fuselage, engine and fins aren't optimized for that environment, which, you guessed it, eats into the range again.
Ofc you have no clue about basic missile trajectories, atmospheric density, can't imagine kinematic performance if your life depended on it, and thus have to rely on BS numbers the DoD interns pull out of their anus for the public.

>as time and time again, American systems have underpromised and overdelivered?

Most american weapon systems are medicore, many are outright trash. Patriot failed 3 wars in a row yet you discovery channel boomers think it's the best shit since sliced bread.

>>64203153
>Who cares what they state, the SM-6 booster is 680kg, 1500 fucking pounds of solid rocket fuel. It lobs the SM-6 several km higher than a bug could, and also well into the supersonic range.
Given those specs and a burn time of 6 seconds, the MK 104 motor takes over the MK 72 at 20,000~ft and mach 1.6.
A Superbugs can launch it from much higher, 30,000~ft at mach 1 conservatively. It'll take the Superbug launch only 10~% more energy to reach 60,000~ft at the same speed (mach 3.5) as the surface launch.
>Also the flight trajectory has to be altered and the missile spends a lot more time in denser atmosphere which is logarithmic, so it eats into range hard. The fuselage, engine and fins aren't optimized for that environment, which, you guessed it, eats into the range again.
This is straight up false, because the flight trajectory for an AIM-174B is lofted and goes 100,000ft+, same as the SM-6.
>Launching an SM-6 without a booser from a bug cuts the range a lot, obviously.
You don't need a booster when you're already at altitude and speed.

No idea why you bought up the Patriot. It's tech was on par with other interceptors for it's time and it really excelled with PAC-3 unless you want to bring up puccian cope.

I wonder if >>64203130 >>64203153 are the same anon and what causes him to seethe so much the beyond the Tomfat being obsolete

>>64203351
>>>64203153
>>Who cares what they state, the SM-6 booster is 680kg, 1500 fucking pounds of solid rocket fuel. It lobs the SM-6 several km higher than a bug could, and also well into the supersonic range.
>Given those specs and a burn time of 6 seconds, the MK 104 motor takes over the MK 72 at 20,000~ft and mach 1.6.
>A Superbugs can launch it from much higher, 30,000~ft at mach 1 conservatively. It'll take the Superbug launch only 10~% more energy to reach 60,000~ft at the same speed (mach 3.5) as the surface launch.

Numbers from your anus? A bug won't match MK72 performance, not even close. Especially not with a 890kg missile on the canted pylon.

>This is straight up false, because the flight trajectory for an AIM-174B is lofted and goes 100,000ft+, same as the SM-6.

Consider where THE FUCK the target is and where THE FUCK the seeker needs to be pointing. An SM-6 can be shot straight up out of the atmosphere ASAP due to the target being, guess what, straight up.
That's why the entire missile is designed for high altitude, basically exoatmospheric, performance.

Protip: Enemy planes tend to fly INSIDE the atmosphere, not ABOVE it.
Inb4 datalink and you retard think datalink antennas work via magic as well and don't need to be pointed. Let me guess, the antenna is INSIDE the engine nozzle, is it?
The retardation on this board is stunning.

>>64203384
>An SM-6 can be shot straight up out of the atmosphere ASAP due to the target being, guess what, straight up.
>That's why the entire missile is designed for high altitude, basically exoatmospheric, performance.
Which is something that makes it particularly well suited to taking down ballistic missiles. Something that the AIM-174 can almost certainly do as well.

>>64203384
>and where THE FUCK the seeker needs to be pointing.
75 degrees on either side of the radome. As the seeker in the SM-6 is a slightly enlarged AIM-120D AAMRAM seeker. You know, the AAMRAM that is an A2A missile, with the ability to be used as a short range surface to air ground launched interceptor...
>An SM-6 can be shot straight up out of the atmosphere ASAP due to the target being, guess what, straight up.
>That's why the entire missile is designed for high altitude, basically exoatmospheric, performance.
No it can't. The SM-6 is a tail fin controlled ENDO atmospheric interceptor with secondary surface attack abilities. It literally has no ability to control its flight if it left the atmosphere, you brain dead idiot. Only the SM-3, and THAAD have Endo atmospheric interception ability. Stop talking about shit you most obviously know nothing about evidenced by all your posts containing wrong information.

>Inb4 datalink and you retard think datalink antennas work via magic as well and don't need to be pointed.
The datalink comms antennas are literally on the sides of the SM-6 spaced out 360 degrees around the circumference of the missile body just behind the radome.

Why is it always the most ignorant and retarded anons that talk like they're experts, when they don't even know the very basic designs of what they claim to have superior knowledge about? This is all literal public knowledge and very easy to look up.

>>64203455
>Only the SM-3, and THAAD have Endo atmospheric interception ability.
EXO* atmospheric

>>64203384
lmao so by your logic an SM-6 fired straight up never has any datalink guidance because clearly the nosecone is the only place where you can place antenna and it doesn't have LOS with the launching ship

This is Hornet-kun here to remind you

>>64205322
LERX are just fixed canards

>>64205346
Fuck you

>>64206026
I'll show you whose the boss of this hangar

>>64202636
‘08 here lmao. So nice try.
I had hoped the big hack fart that happened recently would kill this miserable hole and unshackle us, but no. Back into the meme mines we go, boyos.

>>64201168
Independence Day was cool.

>>64206510
08 here too. Whenever 4chan is down for longer periods, I actually struggle to find any interesting use for the internet outside of youtube and if I can't watch vids, that's gone too. I think if 4chan was actually ever kill, I'd have to go spend time on real life hobbies.

>>64179931 (OP)
Legacy's were faster and more maneuverable Supers are the Trucks.

>>64196764
In GW1 the Hornet actually got a self-escort kill while the F14s just hung back.

>>64202082
Amazing. The Navy always impressed me with hardware. Always loved seeing the reality of it as well. Still though how great is it you got to see the old cats fly. Where I grew up we had warthogs flying daily. They really take off these days

>>64202082
MOS? You mean Rate shippy?

>>64206510
unironically a bigger happening that everything else this year

>>64197303
It's wild how bipolar they are about productions. If they like the script they'll give you insane access, but one thing they don't like and they won't even answer your calls. My dad is a set designer/art director who's done a lot of military-related movies/TV and he's got all kinds of crazy stories, being given basically free reign around bases, the Army organizing helicopter "training exercises" for filming, being loaned an entire airframe for years, and the craziest was an "I can't tell you anything but I'm going to leave you alone for an hour in this room with a table full of classified technical manuals about the highly sensitive thing you're trying to replicate for a movie" situation.

On the other hand he's had productions that were 99.9% positive toward the military but one minor detail (a single asshole officer or whatever) got them completely stonewalled and they had to do everything on their own.

Cool bug facts: bump