Thanks Manscaped for sponsoring this video. For a limited time!! Get 25% OFF sitewide @manscaped as part of the Black Friday Sale! Free international shipping + 2 free gifts Promo code: MGP20 at www.manscaped.com/ #teammanscaped
@@troyrocha7244 you should see his patreon video where he tries to use it & gets all cut up. The sponsor reads are how he gets money I doubt no one cares. Do you buy a new website or a new pair of $300 every time he does squarespace or vesi sponsorships?
Former Legacy and Super Hornet airframe mechanic here. The super hornet (or "Rhino" as we called em) was an absolute delight to work on and a great overall aircraft platform. The legacy hornet was also an airplane.
After seeing quite a few air shows, F/A-18 definitely deserves the name Hornet with how nimbly and sharply it moves accross the sky. It’s staggering how quickly it rolls and turns a corner. One of the best jets ever built.
Australia adopted the F-18 in 1984, replacing old Mirage 111's, which were not very safe aircraft. We chose the F-18 over the F-16 largely due to it's twin engines. We soon fell in love with our Hornets and at many major public events a pair of them would fly over and perform various manoeuvres. I once lived close to the F1 circuit in Melbourne and the F-18's flew so close to my apartment that it seemed I could reach out and touch them. The sound of their engines is overwhelming. We've now replaced them with F-35's, but the F-18 will always be fondly remembered.
I clearly remember the hiss as the Hornet approached the city, slowly building to the familiar ear-splitting screech as it streaked past on it's way to Albert Park
We still have a number of super hornet variants in service. The f111 was an absolute beast of an aircraft. It was just a ground attack craft though. Extremely advanced and powerful, but complex and expensive with limited capabilities.
Hornet was one of the first aircraft to shoot down enemy aircraft while on a strike mission and loaded with bombs, then continue hitting their strike target after shooting them down, not having to jettison their strike weapons.
This episode needed more time in the writers' room. There's a lot wrong with this one. To my recollection, the only electronic warfare version of the F/A-18 is the EA-18G Growler, which is based on the Super Hornet chassis. The "Fly-by-wire" concept came out well before the F/A-18 did, and the first production model aircraft to get it was the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F/A-18 was used by several Air Forces, but the video implies it was used by the US Navy, US Marine Corps, and US Air Force - the latter never adopted it because it had the F-16 doing the same types of missions. Also, it's weird that the YF-17 was mentioned the way it was, because the YF-17 was in competition with the YF-16 to be the Air Force's light weight fighter to complement their own big expensive F-15 Eagle. The F-14 shot down 5 aircraft in US Navy service in its 36 years of operation, however, the Iranian Air Force has shot down more than 150 Iraqi and Soviet aircraft in its 50 years of service. I feel like such a nerd for this post. :(
The EA-18G Growler is my favorite modern jet . I was a US Navy Operations Specialist . The Growler's capabilty to conduct SEAD missions are unequalled .
@@victorwaddell6530 I used the EA-18G Growler in Ace Combat Infinity as my main jet for about a year. It was an excellent platform in game for keeping my wingmen protected.
It needed to be said. These are large errors. Leaving out the fact that it began in the competition as the YF-17, losing to the YF-16 was strange. It's a fantastic jet but this was written like the F-18's mom wrote the script.
The AIM-9 Sidewinder would make an interesting video. They occasionally try to replace it, and its successor ends up being another Sidewinder with a better motor and seeker.
the sidewinder has a great story behind it too. cant remember exactly but it was developed as a side project by a passionate engineer and some major defence contractor tried to kill the program because it was too simple, reliable and cheap.
That does beg the question: if most of the components of a weapon have been upgraded/changed, can it still be considered the same weapon? For example, the M4 Sherman of 1942 and the M4s of 1945 are actually far more different than similar. There is a progression between the two, but does that count if the start and end become so different?
The Hornet was initially introduced into the USN to replace the A7 and F4, not the A6 and F14. The USN still had in commission the USS Midway and Coral Sea which were too small to accommodate Tomcats. The A6 and F14 still remained in service for quite a while after the introduction of the Hornet. I was in the USN during that time period from 1982-88.
Yes, the F-14 was around for a long time after the Hornet was introduced. VF-14 transition in 2001; if memory serves, the last Tomcat squadron was, appropriately enough, VF-31.
Personally I think Its a mix of aesthetic vs function. In my own opinion the F15 is the epitome of sex appeal. but the 18 has its charm, it's biased in the naval sense due to the FA/18's naval needs.
@@cdyfoltz1the same case goes with the F-14 and the F/A-18 With F-14 have an elegant and good looking body while the F/A-18 have a multirole capability and ease of maintenance.
it's probably the most generic looking 4th gen fighter imho. perfectly middle of the road in every regard, aesthetically speaking. it doesn't look ugly by any means but it doesn't look as sick as the f 15 or 14. but that kinda adds to the charm.
@@cdyfoltz1sorry I’m not sexually attracted to aircraft so I’m gonna need your help here please? What exactly makes the F-15 so attractive? Does carrier capable turn you off? Are you a bit “harrier curious”???
My 2nd cousin is a US Marine Corps Capt F18 Pilot. He is all of 27 years old. He will be flying one of the F18's over the Alabama/Alburn Football game this weekend.
One thing to correct here: The F-14 only had 5 kills with the United States Navy, but this is not the case for Iran. The united states had very few physical air-to-air engagements for the navy after the end of the Vietnam war due to political stances. This however did not stop the only other country to possess the airplane, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran used the F-14A's that it had to great effectiveness in the Iran-Iraq war. It in fact was so effective that in many engagements when Iraq realized they were engaged with the tomcats, they were advised to disengage as the F-14's Phoenix missile had a MASSIVE range for the time and to even get close to the Tomcat was a challenge for the Migs and Mirage's. While the F-14 may not have gotten the glory for America like we had expected, it is still a Mig killer to this day with an astounding Kill-to-Loss ratio.
I read somewhere that with its powerful Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar the Iranians also use their F-14's as a poor-man's AWACS aircraft, turning them in a circle to detect and warn of incoming enemy aircraft. I also read that there were at least a handful of American technicians helping to maintain their F-14's when the Shah was deposed. These mechanics were immediately deported out of the country, but not before they removed certain crucial circuit boards having to do with the aircrafts' radar and/or fire control systems, which were stuck in their baggage and taken home by the techs. Apparently the Iranians had to figure out and create new circuitry before their F-14's could find enemies and/or shoot missiles again.
One notable F-18 experience here, and will never forget. Driving south on Hwy 5, coming up on MSP's northernmost NW-SE runway. A super loud, window-ratting roar. And literally right over my head comes an F-18 that stands up on its tail and shoots straight up into the clouds. Nearly drove off the road. Who-eee!
I had skipped school and was surfing off a deserted beach at the Canaveral National seashore south of New Smyrna beach, FL in 89-90 when I heard a quickly growing roar. By the time I could see him, probably 20 feet off of the deck and in afterburner, comes an FA-18 from out at sea I was frantically plugging my ears. It was loudest sound I have ever experienced. And I've seen Motorhead live! I imagine the pilot was coming from a carrier and heading towards the bomb range at Sebring Florida, to the west. Man, that left an impression!
In a bar full of big talkers, the F-18 is the quiet guy who takes the girl home. I work in R&D. There’s so much propaganda, marketing, fanaticism on TH-cam, that we rarely get good, objective data and analysis. Any real analysis needs to include opportunity cost, in addition to other factors like operating cost, production cost, development cost, training cost, performance metrics etc... The F-18 E/F is not only sexy, but it’s the best warplane in the world. Why? Those variables. Its proven reliability and its versatility, against its costs is unrivaled. Opportunity cost-planes sitting in hangers or on tarmacs, not being used, either because they’re needing maintenance or because they’re “too valuable to lose”, or too unreliable to risk, are a critical cost that is almost always unaccounted for by the social media marketing and PR campaigns, and the public at large. You see, if you’re the Navy, and you need a plane to defend the air space around your carrier fleet, would you rather have a super maneuverable, super stealthy, technology-rich plane sitting in your hanger when the attack comes? Or a plane, with seemingly more modest specs, but that is reliably in the air, in numbers, loaded with missiles? It’s easy-you’re taking the option that actually does its job. And here’s a good example-Russia has proven vulnerable to attack at its critical naval and air bases, in a war with a *relatively* tiny country, with crippled infrastructure, fielding a small set of weapons-many of which obsolete. Why? Because their claimed cutting-edge planes and air defenses, for whatever reason, are not available when needed. Opportunity cost. You could have the greatest weapon in the world, but if you can’t use it when you need it, then not only is in useless, but you pay the price of what you could’ve had. And not only does the F-18 do its job, but also the job of many other planes-better. The F-18 E/F is viable in fleet defense, as a tanker, in bombing and precision strike missions, air support, reconnaissance/surveillance, and electronic warfare. And because it’s versatile, able to fill more roles, more cost-effectively, than anything else in the world, you gain even more surplus value. You’re able to purchase fewer parts, and the parts you do purchase are cheaper. Training costs are lower etc… And finally, it’s really not a 1-1 comparison with most other planes as the F-18 is launched from carriers, primarily. Because it has been tailored for the Navy, it is able to bring more ordinance to and from a carrier deck than any of its peers. It is the least difficult to land and take off from a carrier deck, and again-it’s the most durable and maintainable. If you have the best plane in the world, but have to launch it with a fraction of its capability from a carrier deck, then it’s like you’re using a far inferior weapon in practice. The F-18 delivers on its promises. To the layperson, it may not jump off the page. But the measure of a warplane is return on investment. And the F-18, by that measure, wins.
F-22 can still take it out. If only Congress didn’t so shortsightedly cancel the program, there would most definitely be a multirole variant in the skies.
@@shutout951 theoretically the replacement for much of the f-18 fleet, but the massive complexities of the program are hindering its deployment to such a degree that it’s hard to really feel confident about the carrier variant at this stage. For NATO as a whole, it’s necessary, as it’s really the only means of bringing air power to the South China Sea in a conflict. We’re married to it, whether we like it or not. There’s no alternative, at the moment. In terms of capabilities, there’s no comparison. Its suite of sensors and level of integration provides unprecedented levels of awareness and precision. That said, its extraordinary maintenance costs and complexity are massive hurdles, particularly for the naval variant which can’t afford to have planes sitting below deck, or risking accidents. For that reason alone, the super hornet will remain in service for the foreseeable future.
@@LordEmperorHyperion Might want to look at the F15E Eagle. Bigger, less losses (Eagle has 0, compared to the su-30 having eleven), and has a sharping more "menacing" look.
My son took me on a Tiger Cruise on CVN68 some years back. Gotta love them bugs. Nimitz was carrying legacy F-18Cs (USMC VMFA-323), FA-18Es/Fs (USN VFA 154 & VFA-146) and FA=18Gs (USN VAQ 142)
Was on the Nimitz from 84-89 and we were just getting Hornets on my last cruise. Pretty sure they were replacing the A-7 squadrons with them. Also when I first got to the ship, there were 2 Tomcats on the hanger with 2 kills showing. They had shot down 2 Libyan planes that thought they could play rough.
I remember as a kid I always picked the F/A-18 on Ace Combat 5. It didn’t matter if I was gonna be facing advanced fighters, I picked the hornet. I just remember falling in love with it’s looks as soon as I saw it. I guess it also helped that the hornet was the first fighter I’d ever sat in.
just got a low alt buzz here in sudbury a few weeks ago coming out of Quebec awesomeness scared the shit outta me I knew right away what it was fucking awesome
Saw em in 2004 in Cold Lake, back when I was an air cadet on aircrew survival. They were training over our heads for the airshow which I got to see! We even heard em off in the distance doing live fire exercises! Seriously cool
Canada's most loved aircraft after the Avro Arrow. Two engines are comforting when on long Arctic patrols. Ivan fears what could happen should they misbehave.
Loved seeing em drown out my instructors as an air cadet in the bushes of Cold Lake! They were flying overhead regularly, but also training for the airshow coming up in a couple days (Which I also got to attend!). One of my coolest aviation experiences. Also, it was sick getting to see them in Comox, when the airshows were running! I will never forget those experiences :)
The twin engines is the same reason Australia went with them over the f16. We fly the super Hornets and f35s now, but there are quite a few legacy Hornets in mothballs being considered for feasibility in Ukraine.
TH-camr Ward Carrol just posted a video yesterday with the guy who was Blue Angel #1, when the Angels switched to the F/A-18. Interestingly the first batch of 18's the Angels got were actually pre-production/development versions that were not carrier capable. It's worth a watch!
I think one of his videos mention F18 (and the E/F versions) is shorter range than the F14 so requires more aerial refueling or carrier group be closer to target. Plus other deficiencies. Maybe "experts" can elaborate. Also in that same video by Ward is our time in Afghanistan took a considerable toll on carrier aircraft having to put in lots more flight hours over the years which significantly aged the aircraft fleet. In comparison when Navy first procured they expected these will last X amount of years which now that number is lower.
@@wrightmf The Super Hornet has abysmal range because its pylons are canted outwards in order to improve clearance (i.e. allow for bigger weapons to be carried on them). That does give it nearly the same if not better payload than the F-14, which is quite impressive given its much smaller size, and even moreso when you remember the Super Hornet still has better low-speed characteristics than the Tomcat, but the drag penalty means the Super Hornet has a combat radius of just 400nmi with a full payload, even with three 1000 gallon drop tanks. The last carrier aircraft with such a short full-payload combat radius was the A-1 Skyraider.
@@GintaPPE1000 I'm fairly certain everything you just said about range was wrong,. The Rhino's wiki combat radius is ~67nm less. It's not Abysmal range, ferry is definitely better than the F-14. The canted pylons are negligible at subsonic speeds. Do you have any sources? I really don't feel like breaking out the NFM and DI's ATM. Combat radius is very subjective too, loaded correctly your "combat radius" could be 1,200 miles.
Points of quibble - 1) Around 9:20 you mention the F-14 was being replaced by the F-22. However, there has never been a carrier version of the F-22. The F-35 would fill that role much later. 2) While the F/A-18 was always limited to 7.5 Gs (not 9 Gs), when loaded out with fuel tanks, missiles and bombs, the G-limit was much lower due to the structural limitations of the wings and weapons rails. Also, until GPS guidance was introduced, the inertial guidance systems were sensitive to high-Gs that could lock up the gyroscopes causing failures.
The thing I remember most about the Hornet was the dramatic shift to sensor-based predictive maintenance. This was a big change from replacing parts at arbitrary flight hour times or fix-on-fail. Pulling engines after a certain amount of cumulative stress allowed the fleet to plan major maintenance around operations much more effectively.
The "built in test" capabilities in avionics were well ahead of the previous generations of aircraft but there were no "prognostics" built into the aircraft. Many components were tracked based on fatigue life expended (FLE), cycles expended, flight hours, landings and calendar time. Each engine had 30ish components that were individually tracked.
You increased my appreciation for Northrup with this. I already knew they made easily maintained stuff with the F5, but they did that with the FA18 as well. It's too bad the YF-23 didn't win that competition, or that someone didn't come in and scoop it up for another project like they did for the YF-17.
Well, Lockheed needed another contract to stay on business.... And lemme stop any annoying people here. I, have not, seen evidence that the Raptor is better than the Black Widow II
I got to tour the Northrop facility where they were making these back in 1989, and I was allowed to grab some of the offcuts of carbon fiber. I even got an F/A-18 pin. It was so amazing!
My father in law was an aviation structural mechanic on both the F-14 and F/A-18 jets. He said the F-14 was far more complex but absolutely beautiful and the favorite of most Navy personnel. But the F/A-18 however, quickly became the most loved and revered because of it's simplicity, abilities and dependability among himself and his fellow mechanics. Take any trip to the Virginia Beach area and you will get your daily greeting each morning known as a " VA Beach Wakeup Call" as they roar past your hotel and shake the foundations: and there is nothing cooler to see and hear! And for the record, I think the F/A-18 is one of the most beautiful jets there is!
I know I'm seeing this late, but I will comment anyway. The F-14 didn't have many kills because we weren't in a hot war. When the F-14 was engaged by an enemy, it is undefeated. The Iraqi Airforce realized how effective the original Tomcat was and ran from it during any engagement. Yes, there were some issues with compressor stalls that were addressed with the new engine. Yes, 8 pilots dies in crashes. Which is a tragedy. However, consider the number of sorties during 34 years in service and the rigors of carrier based ops in your calculation. Thay is an outstanding record. As far as the F-22 is concerned, it isn't a Naval aircraft, and the F-14 was never an Airforce aircraft. Why you mentioned it isn't even understandable. Had the F-14 been updated, it would certainly give an F-18 a run for its money and certainly out class it in air superiority. The biggest reason the F-14 was retired was because the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the US as the only military superpower. So the Navy went with an aircraft that fulfilled a different role for small regional conflict. The F-18 is a formidable aircraft in its own right, but don't disrespect the F-14.
The F/A-18A was popular in Australia, as it was our primary front line fighter for over 20 years. I would maybe expect the same from Canada? In fact they were so important to both countries at the time that both countries designed and implemented a major modification in the leading extension fence to reduce vibrations in the twin tails to extend airframe life. The USN later adopted this modification themselves.
Canadian here. We love hornets. The RCAF has a demo hornet in a special paint livery every year. It and the snowbirds are the best part of every airshow. Side story. One holiday weekend I was stuck in traffic on the highway in my hometown (driving truck sometimes means work when others are playing lol). As I sat miserable on the highway I hear a sound that could only come from one thing. The demo hornet was doing a show over our beachfront but in doing so kept making low passes over the highway as if it were making attack runs. Best traffic jam ever lol
as an aussie in perth i have been lucky to see some planes flying overhead but i dont think any of them are hornets :( can only imagine what these beasts would sound like overhead. P.S. cant wait for some subs thare beyond 50% functionality
@@darbyheavey406 USAF F-86's? The Aussie CAC Sabre was very heavily modified with a fuselage changes, a larger intake to fit the more powerful RR engine, and 20mm cannons. Not sure if the Canadians had anything to do with that one?!
Growing up watching the F/A 18 blue angels, I have always been fascinated by it. I always thought it was a beautiful jet. I would love to see videos of it's fire power.
I lived near a Canadian Base all my youth and seeing them fly over my parents house.... Will always be one of my top favorite aircraft.... It's magnificent.
Excelent video. Just one small correction, the F-35 only has 4 internal hardpoints but when stealth is not needed it has an additional 6 external hardpoints bringing it to a total of 10 hardpoints.
True, wherefore the F-35 is a failure. If you use external hardpoints then the plane is no longer stealthy. Since the F-35 is a one trick pony, the F-35 is no match for a competent 4th generation fighter in unstealthed mode. If the F-35 merely uses internal hard points, then the bomb load is abysmal - it will need at least two missiles for self defence. Therefore, it is not very useful as a strategic bomber... And i haven't even started to talk about the cost and reliability.
@Kilian Klaiber I assume you're basing this off the flawed report of f35 vs f16? Using prototype aircraft with limiting software and no helmet display ?
@@kilianklaiber6367 I think you missed the part that "when stealth is not needed". You only need stealth before you get air superiority. To attack ground targets with a non stealth fighter you only risk loosing a lot of aircraft and pilots. If you use the F-35 then the survival rate is a lot higher. But perhaps you think it is better to risk the life of the pilots in order to carry more ordnance before air superiority is attained.
@@swe-timberwolf3642 So stealth is not the end all and be all of fighter jet design!? Then the F-35 is a failure because stealth is its unique selling point. When stealth is needed, then the F-35 is largely useless due to its abysmal weapon load.
@@kilianklaiber6367 hahaha, I think you are missunderstanding things. Thanks to the F-35s stealth it is absolutely essential. It give the ability to go in and strike the enemies positions without risking the plane or the pilot. Sure it has a smaller payload and you might need to do more sorties because of this, but I think the pilots families sleep better at night knowing that their loved ones stands a good chance of coming home to them again.
Bunch of stuff I didn't know about the Hornet. Ironic that an aircraft that could hurt the pilot because of it's power has such an amazing safety record. Truly an amazing aircraft!
@@TentaclI mean, I PERSONALLY think the 16 looks too flimsy, and the 14 just looks like an overgrown animal. The 18, in MY PERSONAL OPINION looks perfect.
@@mr.radovic702 Well, there is no right or wrong here obvisouly, we are talking about aesthethics, but IMHO the F-14 looks like a classic Ferrari - something like a 250 GT - Curvy, sexy, needlessly expensive - while the F-18 is a Lexus - great cost benefit, decent looking but nothing to write home about.
Hi! First of all, I love to watch your videos and gain my knowledge on the interesting things you discover on this channel. Keep up the good stuff! I served as a conscript in Finnish Air Force few years back and our base, the Support air squadron had few Hornets among other (mostly transportation) planes such as Learjet 35A/S's and CASA C-295's. I think it's still a great fighter although it sure is quite old. In fact the Finnish Air Force is replacing it with the F-35 Lightning II from 2025 towards… I have this one story about the F-18 though… One time I was sitting in an military police van near the runway with one of our bases senior officers and got to see a couple of Hornets took off. When pilots hit their afterburners to full power and storm past us, the whole VW Transporter was literally shaking by the sound waves those jets created. I will never forget how they turned their noses straight upwards and disappeared to the clouds (it was a rainy day) with a loud rumble. I'm not a fighter pilot, but I can tell you that just by hearing the thunder of Hornets fly by with afterburners on full thrust the noise still gives me goosebumps, every now and then.
F/A18 is top three best-looking planes ever made! the Black/White gold NASA one is stunning. been working on a list and it top 5 minimum. SR71, Grippen, Rafale, Dehavland (many but,,)dragonfly DH3 i think. and the F18 not totaly sold on what prder these are in but sr71 likely #1 F22 and fat amy f35.
I think the F 16 has the sexiest lines of any fighter jet, but F 18 is up there for sure. Also agree, theSRr71 is for sure the most gorgeous plane of any type - have you seen one in person? It's extremely impressive and can be viewed at the national air and space museum just outside of D.C. Cannot recommend that museum highly enough.
I feel almost all 4th gen fighters are really sexy looking. Current 5th gen stealth figters looks quite samy. Main reason is that there are only so many shapes that are both stealthy and airodynamic. 4th gen fighters the only consideration was airodynamics hence we got all those sexy planes :)
UNSEXY???? Time to get your glasses replaced. I've loved the Hornet (and its spawn) since it first arrived on the scene. I remember watching videos of the "testing" of the original Hornet way back in the early 80s. The "catch" the arresting wire while still airborne and watching it "plop" onto the deck was especially thrilling (and demonstrated how strong those main gear have to be.). Have watched the Blue Angels many times including when they were flying the "Legacy" Hornets, and now the new Super Hornets. I'm even sitting here keying this in, drinking coffee from a (Boeing) mug that has a F/A-18 Super Hornet on it. One of my favorite aircraft ever.
The F-35 is capable of carrying roughly the same payload as the hornet when external hard points are used, in stealth configurations ranges are pretty close, especially the C with its massive internal fuel load.
When hanging things under the wings, the Super Hornet can do it with less cost. When stealth and coordination are needed, then the F35C's expense is justified. Super Hornets will carry the heavy loads the C can't.
If you want to try flying one of these little guys I highly recommend DCS World's FA18C module. It's a fully simulated hornet and you can enjoy spending dozens of hours navigating the various menus and buttons to figure out how to turn it on and drop a bomb lol.
Don't forget the Supercarrier launch and landing with fully operational TACAN and ICLS. There is even "Autoland" now which I haven't investigated. Still trying for that no. 3 wire!
The F-18 Hornet (and its pilot) became the most amazing airplane in my humble opinion when I witnessed a demonstration of its incredible engine power and low-speed maneuvering abilities during an airshow I attended back in the 1990's. The solo pilot approached down the runway center line from the left and slowed down while pitching up the nose. At the point the Hornet reached the middle of the public viewing area, the plane was going slower than apparent stall speed, seeming to be held up mostly by the thrust of the screaming engines, as the wings were at too high an angle to generate much lift. You could see the wing flaps and tail surfaces making constant quick adjustments to maintain control. The pilot then held this nose-high attitude while slowly executing a full 360-degree turn to port in front of the audience. As the plane came back around, the pilot added more thrust, accelerated and climbed away. To see a conventional airplane perform that sort of maneuver right down on the deck was nothing short of amazing. A Hawker Harrier also performed its routine that same day, but what the pilot of that Hornet demonstrated was far more impressive to me, and that's what sticks in my mind all these years later. I haven't been able to find a video showing this complete maneuver anywhere, and I wonder if, at some point, it was deemed too risky to continue performing. Here's a link to a TH-cam video that shows a small portion of what I witnessed that day, beginning at about the 1:29 mark: th-cam.com/video/eEPoD_VRABc/w-d-xo.html - now imagine the plane holding the attitude you see there at 1:43 and making a full 360-degree turn. It was absolutely jaw-dropping.
it also had less than half the combat range of the older A-6 intruder, meaning it needs 2-3 times the tankers that an Intruder would need, or require the carrier to be closer to shoreline and risk exposure to antiship threats. The Super Hornet has even a slightly lower range. What this means is that aircraft have to have a higher operational tempo and run more missions than previously. More takeoff and landing cycles, more time in air for pilots, more stress for personnel and equipment.
The context here was to explain the specific costs for the US Navy. That said, Iran's F-14 usage is probably why the US never needed to use theirs. Iran absolutely shredded the Iraqi Soviet-based AF.
I wonder in his tomcat video does he mention just when the whole programme was about to get cancelled due to cost over runs and delays the Shah of Iran ordered the state bank of Iran to loan Grumman to money to get the programme back on track....the author Tom Cooper even makes mention of this in his book "Iranian F-14 Tomcat units in combat" by Osprey Publishing.
Compared to what?.. Think it looks better than the F-14, or 15, or 16? Or the 22 or 35? It's undeniably the ugliest of the modern fighter fleet. Granted, that still does not make it UGLY.. I'm almost saying she was the ugliest in the Miss USA contest here, aren't I?
@@bliglum I wasn't comparing it to anything, simply stating a fact. The F-14 will always be my favorite and I appreciate the beauty those you mentioned, lol you do you good sir Edit : if I was comparing I'd do it by size more than anything, so F-14 > F-15, F/A-18 > F-16...
F-18’s legacy remains as a revolutionary fighter, easy to fly and land, lethal in a turning fight, maneuverable, easy to maintain, excellent for Marine infantry support, fast, versatile, true multi role capabilities and ground attack.
I never thought much about the F/A 18 Hornet, but after watching your video I have a real respect for this under rated aircraft! I'm guilty of being an F-14 Tomcat fan, but all the numbers and facts you covered allowed me to see what an amazing aircraft the F/A 18 Hornet has been!
"Compared to the Tomcat the Hornet didn't leap off the screen," That's an unfair comparison, the F-14 is the most fighter looking fighter ever built, it somehow looks meaner than any other jet fighter ever built. It's ludicrously photogenic.
When Simon quoted that low kill count for the Tomcat, he must have been referring strictly to the American victories using that type. Iran claimed many victories against Iraq with theirs.
There are a number of inconsistencies between this video and others that discuss the history of the F-18. The F-18 was initially intended to replace aging F4 phantoms and A7 Corsair II. The A-12, which was cancelled was intended to replace the A-6 Intruder and to fulfill many other roles like ASW, Prowler replacement etc. The F-18 didn’t have the long range or payload capacity to replace the A-6. The F-14 was intended to be replaced by the NATF but that never happened. The Super Hornet came out of the ashes of the A-12 and NATF with a significant range and payload improvement. The Hornet is a great plane that had to take on more than originally intended when the Navy it’s started development and it was a cost effective program. Given US success since the Cold War, maybe everything worked out for the best.
My dad was an NFO in the S-3 Viking, spoke very highly of the Hornet squadrons he was deployed alongside on his various tours. Funnily enough, as you mentioned, the Hornet replaced his plane in its primary role (submarine hunting) before he went on to (in my opinion) one of the coolest aircraft the US has ever made: the Ea-6B Prowler, the KING of electronic warfare. But then along comes a souped up FA-18E with its cannon replaced with a compact version of the Prowler’s EW suite. Yes, my dads SECOND plane got replaced by the EA-18G Growler 😂 Not that he complained. He was retired when that happened, and took me to an air show where the Growler was being shown off so he could appreciate (I.e. geek out) about the Navy’s new EW king. The Hornet may not be as “sleek” or “talked about” as the Raptor or the Spirit or whatever flavor of the month the Air Force trundles out, but it will be a LOOOOONG time before the American flying workhorse of the FA-18 and the FA-18E are gone. I still love the S-3 and the EA-6B though 😝
Is it as voluptuous as the F-22, or as iconic and badass as the F-14, or downright beautiful as the P-51? Maybe not, however, the Hornet is still a very good looking plane, especially when it doesn't have a bunch of fuel tanks strapped to it. We really couldn't have asked for a better workhorse for the Navy. From Growlers to Super Hornets, this airframe is already legendary!
@@kayliibensen387 it's the first one that comes to mind(not considering prototypes obviously), there may be some old experimental ww2 stuff, but i do think this is the first proper use yes.
I'm sure someone will correct us if we're mistaken, either way, I can't wait for the next Blue Angels display near me. It's been too long since I've seen one of these things IRL!
I’ve never heard the F18 described as ugly or unsexy. She’s a beautiful, unique airframe, sleek, thin, and above all, tight; thin fuselage, stubby wings on her hips, and two large tight engines. I always loved the design of the fuselage. So I’m a little confused by this narrative that shes ugly? Plus, Blue Angels? She looks gorgeous in a blue and gold paint job.
Simon "The F18 is boring and safe. " also Simon "The F18 could break your bones and knock you unconscious, it was a beast." Pick one Fact Boy. LOL As one of the many Marines that supported the FA18 we knew it was badass from the very beginning. I don't know who's opinions you were quoting but they didn't know what they were talking about.
@@tenshi66 I was stationed at Iwakuni for 2 years. My job was next to the runway. I was awesome to watch the planes takeoff. Running along the seawall as planes came in was so cool.
@@mrtlsimon I dreaded the harriers everytime I got anywhere near penny lake when I ran the sea wall. Dad was a tech and I could always tell when the harriers were using the hell out of the landing pad when he got home. Guy would be stupidly angry. And hoarse. Because he would have spent his day yelling to talk to his techs.
Your video brought up a comparison to the old A-4 Skyhawk. It was smaller, less expensive, and required much less maintenance hours per flight hour, much like your review here of the Hornet. Maybe a video on the A-4 is in order?
I noticed you didn't mention that while it lost to the YF-16 when the USAF was looking for a smaller fighter aircraft, the then YF-17 performed well enough that the USN grabbed it up & it became the F/A-18. Here in Canada it's loved as much as the Avro Arrow, & has served for decades.
My first experience with the Hornet was in school at NAS Pensacola, I was lucky to be stationed there at that time of year as I got to watch the Blue Angels practice on my way to lunch as they're stationed there as well. I admit, I wasn't thrilled when VFA-102 deployed with the Kitty Hawk (nice to see the Diamondback's livery at 8:19 again, even if that's back when they were a Tomcat group). The Tomcat was iconic and there was resentment about them being phased out, but the sailors that worked on the flight deck and hanger bay told me their biggest advantages, not only could they fit 3 Hornets in the space of 2 Tomcats, but they only required 1/3 of the maintenance hours (shortened to 1/4 of it over the years it seems, learned something new). The E/A-6 Prowler being replaced with the E/A-18G Growler was a concern, but it's proven itself up to the electronic warfare tasking.
The Eagle and Viper could both pull 9gs and the Eagle had a better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. I love his channel but he gets fed a fair amount of erroneous data.
I grew up always being a fan of the Hornets, maybe it´s because i liked how much they could do, how versatile they were, simply, me being german, i liked their efficiency.
There is a story about a senior Australian RAAF pilot testing a hornet in the US before we bought some. As speed and at altitude he cut the throttles dead, paused and then applied full power. The engines spooled down and then spooled up again. The senior USAAF pilot in the back started to apologize for the time it took but the Aussie cut him off, explaining that the older Mirages simply wouldn't have coped with that kind of abuse. I knew the hornet was inferior in capability to the tomcat and was forced upon the US Navy instead of updating the systems and capabilities of that airframe. A wasted opportunity IMO. But they were a modernized medium twin that was cheaper to own and run. They couldn't project power as far as easily but you tend to fly more hours and get more done in aircraft if they're cheaper to run while still being competent.
Well, it's been the perfect plane for Australia's fighter-bomber needs for 40 years (albeit finally being replaced by F-35s) with 3 squadrons of Super Hornets in place to serve as bomber & jammer planes for decades to come. I felt relief at that latter decision because the F-35 is still an unknown quantity in war whereas the Hornet's been as reliable as can be. Our Air Force seems to have the same needs as the US Navy generally- a reliable, durable, versatile, long-range bird.
One of life's many mysteries that anyone could ever describe the F/A-18 as "Unsexy". All of the Hornet variants are mean sexy beasts and are my personal favourite combat aircraft right after the F-15-C and E. The F-14 was beauty that was retired before her prime, I think. And the F-35, so called "Fat Amy", is a beautiful beast that will surprise quite a few haters when her time comes (give some love to sexy fat girls). Otherwise enjoyed this video history of a vary capable fighter whose variants will still be relevant after its original F/A-18 pilots are grandparents.
I’m an Air Force brat. I loved seeing our airplanes. I even did a stint of my own. My favorites are the U-2, SR-71, and the Warthog. But then, I was in intelligence, so I’m prejudiced. One of the most sobering sights in my life was at a SAC base: a huge flightline with many B-52s at standby in case of an attack from the Soviet Union. It was the 1960s, and not long after the Cuban Missile Crisis. For a view of that era, I recommend the novel Alas Babylon by Pat Frank or Failsafe by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.
@@CallMeByMyMatingName LOL Well if you wanna discredit the F18 that's entirely your viewpoint cos it ain't mine 😅 Such a teenage response, immature and crude haha
I could've watched you do another 2 hours at least on this awesome aircraft, Simon. Thanks for delivering such a respectful piece of content on this magnificent aircraft.
F-18 is super sexy, you’re dead wrong on that Simon. When I hear the words “fighter jet”, the first thing that pops into my head is the top down silhouette of an F-5. The F-18 is basically the child of the F-5...with better everything, including looks.
While the F-14 Tomcat is superior to the F/A-18E in every regard including speed, agility, manœuvrability, air to air and air to ground combat, one thing I rarely see people talk about is the many redundancies the F/A-18C has in case of battle damage. Not only are the engines robust and reliable, the flight controls feature 4, not 2 but 4 independent hydraulic systems which shut off in case of a leak, the electronic fly-by-wire system has 1 digital backup, 1 analog backup, AND a "manual linkage", the computer understands when a flight surface is lost and compensates to keep the aircraft flying straight, it's absolutely amazing the technology that went into the Hornet just to bring the pilot back home
@@Triskster no. It's because the "master of all" fell short in many areas which was made more obvious once the Intruders were retired. That's why they made the Super Hornet to make up for those shortfalls and got rid of the "master of all" legacy Hornets as their replacements came in. There's no point of having a carrier if its strike aircraft are short legged and incapable of carrying heavy loads.
@@MotoroidARFC The F-18 served from 1984 till 2018. Never said it could not be improved. It also doesn't have the interceptor ability of an F-14. It replaced some of the best aircraft ever built and did a fine job.
@@Triskster you said it was a master of all when it was not. The Hornet was not the "master of all". A Super Hornet is much closer to being a "master of all" than a Hornet will ever be.
Damn, always loved the Hornet more then the Tomcat because of Independence day. It always looked very sexy to me. The only aircraft that captured my imagination even more was the F-22
Many of the points you make contradict what I've heard/read about it. While it was indeed praised for it's reliability and ease of maintenance, it was found lacking in acceleration, speed, range and bring-back capability(how much fuel/ordinance it could carry when landing on the carrier.) The super hornet was designed specifically to remedy many of these problems. That being said I think it's an awesome jet. Also one of my favourite DCS modules.
2001 cruise on the Stennis with 3 F/A-18 squadrons and one F-14 squadron. The RADAR shop in AIMD had 2 different benches for the Hornets (different generations of RADAR) and 4 different benches for the Tom Cats. And the F-14 side of the shop was always swamped with work supporting only one squadron. I played a lot of Halo and GTA3....
Yeah that's what happens when you spend all your money on one plane and none on the other, The Tomcat was woefully neglected and as a result it required far more maintenance so in the future just make sure you blame the DOD for its maintenance issues and not the plane.
@@josephkugel5099 yea it’s funny how the myth about the wings caused maintenance issues was spread because the real problem was the lack of good spare parts. Bio Barnanek talked about how the maintenance issues went away during the Gulf War once the f14 maintenance crews were given good spare parts
My dad worked at McDonnell Aircraft from the mid 1950's thru 1976 and he worked on final assembly big hangar just prior to aircraft going to the first flight line. He worked on F101 VooDoo, F3H Demon, F4A/B/C/D/E Phantom and F15 A/B/C... He used to watch the aircraft take off from Lambert air field and he said the F15 was the fastest airplane he ever saw take off. The F15's would take off with full after burner and go straight up. He said they would be out of sight in less than 20 sec. after takeoff and could climb straight up since they had more thrust than weight particularly when on test flights since they usually had no weapons or spare fuel tanks.
this was my favorite airplane when i was a kid. I used to watch Pensacola Wings of Gold all the time and would always wait for the episode where this jet would make an appearance
F-18 is cool, but I've always liked the F-16 more. Growing up I was obsessed with it. Then I got stationed at a base with 5 squadrons of all F16s and still didn't get sick of them. I was always out on the airfield plane spotting😂Since I worked in airfield management, I got to do my plane spotting right on the runway hold line.
Thanks Manscaped for sponsoring this video. For a limited time!! Get 25% OFF sitewide @manscaped as part of the Black Friday Sale! Free international shipping + 2 free gifts Promo code: MGP20 at www.manscaped.com/ #teammanscaped
I know that their talking points says "Waterproof". But please don't use that. Nothing is ever truly "waterproof". It's water resistant.
Simon we need DTU March 8 1994 Michigan Please make it happen
Your going to loose subscribers promoting this product
@@troyrocha7244 you should see his patreon video where he tries to use it & gets all cut up. The sponsor reads are how he gets money I doubt no one cares. Do you buy a new website or a new pair of $300 every time he does squarespace or vesi sponsorships?
@@troyrocha7244 Yeah, starting the video with two minutes of promoting an useless product - I'm not watching anything else from this channel.
Former Legacy and Super Hornet airframe mechanic here. The super hornet (or "Rhino" as we called em) was an absolute delight to work on and a great overall aircraft platform. The legacy hornet was also an airplane.
Lol. So much shade.
Thats a good burn on the legacy hornet!
@@GGGaming-by9vz sorry but i dont get it... could u explain plz
Also an airplane…USAF maintainer for YAWN😂
Calling a Hornet a Legacy Hornet just shows how young you are!! You have no clue what it was like to work on a F4 Phantom!!
The F/A-18 is an beautiful airplane and one of my favorite looking aircraft ever.
poor range. poor load. poor quality. poor maneveorvbility. poor looks. poor weapons
@@esecallum poor opinion
@@esecallum wrong on all accounts.
yeah i think it looks pretty cool!
Not beautiful compared to f14
After seeing quite a few air shows, F/A-18 definitely deserves the name Hornet with how nimbly and sharply it moves accross the sky. It’s staggering how quickly it rolls and turns a corner. One of the best jets ever built.
Truth
Amazing the turns it can pull without thrust vector technology
Agreed IMO it’s only second to the F22 Raptor
@@MrJr0455 Absolutely
@@MrJr0455 Agree. While the F-22 and F-16 will always be my 2 favorite, The Hornet is definitely one of the coolest jets
Australia adopted the F-18 in 1984, replacing old Mirage 111's, which were not very safe aircraft. We chose the F-18 over the F-16 largely due to it's twin engines. We soon fell in love with our Hornets and at many major public events a pair of them would fly over and perform various manoeuvres. I once lived close to the F1 circuit in Melbourne and the F-18's flew so close to my apartment that it seemed I could reach out and touch them. The sound of their engines is overwhelming. We've now replaced them with F-35's, but the F-18 will always be fondly remembered.
I clearly remember the hiss as the Hornet approached the city, slowly building to the familiar ear-splitting screech as it streaked past on it's way to Albert Park
We still have a number of super hornet variants in service.
The f111 was an absolute beast of an aircraft. It was just a ground attack craft though. Extremely advanced and powerful, but complex and expensive with limited capabilities.
you guys made a helluva mistake getting the F-35
@@pontiacGXPfan Says some random on TH-cam?
@@andrewstrongman305 has that shitbird even been in a dogfight with an enemy jet? no
Hornet was one of the first aircraft to shoot down enemy aircraft while on a strike mission and loaded with bombs, then continue hitting their strike target after shooting them down, not having to jettison their strike weapons.
Good old Desert Storm, right?
How dare you sir. The F18 is beautiful especially in a roll.
You mean F/A-18
Haha. I was thinking, it's still better looking than anything I could ever come up with lol
They are delicious
So is bacon.
@@tmi1234567 Everyone knows what is being talked about when they say “F-18”. Hardly anyone goes around saying “F/A-18”.
This episode needed more time in the writers' room. There's a lot wrong with this one. To my recollection, the only electronic warfare version of the F/A-18 is the EA-18G Growler, which is based on the Super Hornet chassis. The "Fly-by-wire" concept came out well before the F/A-18 did, and the first production model aircraft to get it was the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F/A-18 was used by several Air Forces, but the video implies it was used by the US Navy, US Marine Corps, and US Air Force - the latter never adopted it because it had the F-16 doing the same types of missions. Also, it's weird that the YF-17 was mentioned the way it was, because the YF-17 was in competition with the YF-16 to be the Air Force's light weight fighter to complement their own big expensive F-15 Eagle. The F-14 shot down 5 aircraft in US Navy service in its 36 years of operation, however, the Iranian Air Force has shot down more than 150 Iraqi and Soviet aircraft in its 50 years of service.
I feel like such a nerd for this post. :(
The EA-18G Growler is my favorite modern jet . I was a US Navy Operations Specialist . The Growler's capabilty to conduct SEAD missions are unequalled .
@@victorwaddell6530 I used the EA-18G Growler in Ace Combat Infinity as my main jet for about a year. It was an excellent platform in game for keeping my wingmen protected.
It needed to be said. These are large errors. Leaving out the fact that it began in the competition as the YF-17, losing to the YF-16 was strange. It's a fantastic jet but this was written like the F-18's mom wrote the script.
@@EnhanceRaptor One Growler per squadron is enough to change the battle .
Great video, but like you said some issues. Only the Swiss version does 9g, and broken bones and head banging?
The AIM-9 Sidewinder would make an interesting video. They occasionally try to replace it, and its successor ends up being another Sidewinder with a better motor and seeker.
the sidewinder has a great story behind it too. cant remember exactly but it was developed as a side project by a passionate engineer and some major defence contractor tried to kill the program because it was too simple, reliable and cheap.
AGM-88 and the aim 9 would be super interesting
It is an interesting video that he did a year ago on sideprojects.
That does beg the question: if most of the components of a weapon have been upgraded/changed, can it still be considered the same weapon? For example, the M4 Sherman of 1942 and the M4s of 1945 are actually far more different than similar. There is a progression between the two, but does that count if the start and end become so different?
@@TheSchultinator Ship of Theseus
The Hornet was initially introduced into the USN to replace the A7 and F4, not the A6 and F14. The USN still had in commission the USS Midway and Coral Sea which were too small to accommodate Tomcats. The A6 and F14 still remained in service for quite a while after the introduction of the Hornet. I was in the USN during that time period from 1982-88.
Yes, the F-14 was around for a long time after the Hornet was introduced. VF-14 transition in 2001; if memory serves, the last Tomcat squadron was, appropriately enough, VF-31.
NATF-23 Sea Widow ?
The Hornet was meant to compliment the Tomcat, the Super Hornet was meant to replace the Tomcat.
@@taiwandxt6493 original plans replace by NATF-23 Sea Widow and A6 Intruder replace by A-12 Avenger
The Hornet was more a complement to the Tomcat, The Super Hornet was more the replacement for the F-14.
Why do people call the F-18 unsexy? It is a beautiful aircraft. With a great history.
Personally I think Its a mix of aesthetic vs function.
In my own opinion the F15 is the epitome of sex appeal. but the 18 has its charm, it's biased in the naval sense due to the FA/18's naval needs.
@@cdyfoltz1the same case goes with the F-14 and the F/A-18
With F-14 have an elegant and good looking body while the F/A-18 have a multirole capability and ease of maintenance.
it's probably the most generic looking 4th gen fighter imho. perfectly middle of the road in every regard, aesthetically speaking. it doesn't look ugly by any means but it doesn't look as sick as the f 15 or 14. but that kinda adds to the charm.
at least it's better than the f-14
@@cdyfoltz1sorry I’m not sexually attracted to aircraft so I’m gonna need your help here please?
What exactly makes the F-15 so attractive? Does carrier capable turn you off? Are you a bit “harrier curious”???
My 2nd cousin is a US Marine Corps Capt F18 Pilot. He is all of 27 years old. He will be flying one of the F18's over the Alabama/Alburn Football game this weekend.
Sweet!
Cool!
Hmm. They had to have flown out of NAS Meridian, MS. No other FA-18 bases anywhere close to Title Town.
Cool
@@jimbograves1576 that bird came from Beaufort, South Carolina!
One thing to correct here: The F-14 only had 5 kills with the United States Navy, but this is not the case for Iran. The united states had very few physical air-to-air engagements for the navy after the end of the Vietnam war due to political stances. This however did not stop the only other country to possess the airplane, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran used the F-14A's that it had to great effectiveness in the Iran-Iraq war. It in fact was so effective that in many engagements when Iraq realized they were engaged with the tomcats, they were advised to disengage as the F-14's Phoenix missile had a MASSIVE range for the time and to even get close to the Tomcat was a challenge for the Migs and Mirage's. While the F-14 may not have gotten the glory for America like we had expected, it is still a Mig killer to this day with an astounding Kill-to-Loss ratio.
165:4, I believe
I read somewhere that with its powerful Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar the Iranians also use their F-14's as a poor-man's AWACS aircraft, turning them in a circle to detect and warn of incoming enemy aircraft.
I also read that there were at least a handful of American technicians helping to maintain their F-14's when the Shah was deposed. These mechanics were immediately deported out of the country, but not before they removed certain crucial circuit boards having to do with the aircrafts' radar and/or fire control systems, which were stuck in their baggage and taken home by the techs. Apparently the Iranians had to figure out and create new circuitry before their F-14's could find enemies and/or shoot missiles again.
3:45 - Chapter 1 - The end of the golden age
7:00 - Chapter 2 - Origins
13:00 - Chapter 3 - Cost
14:15 - Chapter 4 - Survivability
15:15 - Chapter 5 - Durability
16:20 - Chapter 6 - Flexibility
18:00 - Chapter 7 - Firepower
19:30 - Chapter 8 - Legacy
Good on ya mate 🇦🇺
O7
0:33 Johnny Cochrane
Man thank you for the timestamps
One notable F-18 experience here, and will never forget. Driving south on Hwy 5, coming up on MSP's northernmost NW-SE runway. A super loud, window-ratting roar. And literally right over my head comes an F-18 that stands up on its tail and shoots straight up into the clouds. Nearly drove off the road. Who-eee!
I had skipped school and was surfing off a deserted beach at the Canaveral National seashore south of New Smyrna beach, FL in 89-90 when I heard a quickly growing roar. By the time I could see him, probably 20 feet off of the deck and in afterburner, comes an FA-18 from out at sea I was frantically plugging my ears. It was loudest sound I have ever experienced. And I've seen Motorhead live! I imagine the pilot was coming from a carrier and heading towards the bomb range at Sebring Florida, to the west. Man, that left an impression!
Two really cool, well-told anecdotes - could totally visualize both experiences, thank you!
In a bar full of big talkers, the F-18 is the quiet guy who takes the girl home.
I work in R&D. There’s so much propaganda, marketing, fanaticism on TH-cam, that we rarely get good, objective data and analysis.
Any real analysis needs to include opportunity cost, in addition to other factors like operating cost, production cost, development cost, training cost, performance metrics etc...
The F-18 E/F is not only sexy, but it’s the best warplane in the world. Why? Those variables.
Its proven reliability and its versatility, against its costs is unrivaled.
Opportunity cost-planes sitting in hangers or on tarmacs, not being used, either because they’re needing maintenance or because they’re “too valuable to lose”, or too unreliable to risk, are a critical cost that is almost always unaccounted for by the social media marketing and PR campaigns, and the public at large.
You see, if you’re the Navy, and you need a plane to defend the air space around your carrier fleet, would you rather have a super maneuverable, super stealthy, technology-rich plane sitting in your hanger when the attack comes? Or a plane, with seemingly more modest specs, but that is reliably in the air, in numbers, loaded with missiles?
It’s easy-you’re taking the option that actually does its job.
And here’s a good example-Russia has proven vulnerable to attack at its critical naval and air bases, in a war with a *relatively* tiny country, with crippled infrastructure, fielding a small set of weapons-many of which obsolete.
Why? Because their claimed cutting-edge planes and air defenses, for whatever reason, are not available when needed.
Opportunity cost. You could have the greatest weapon in the world, but if you can’t use it when you need it, then not only is in useless, but you pay the price of what you could’ve had.
And not only does the F-18 do its job, but also the job of many other planes-better.
The F-18 E/F is viable in fleet defense, as a tanker, in bombing and precision strike missions, air support, reconnaissance/surveillance, and electronic warfare.
And because it’s versatile, able to fill more roles, more cost-effectively, than anything else in the world, you gain even more surplus value. You’re able to purchase fewer parts, and the parts you do purchase are cheaper. Training costs are lower etc…
And finally, it’s really not a 1-1 comparison with most other planes as the F-18 is launched from carriers, primarily. Because it has been tailored for the Navy, it is able to bring more ordinance to and from a carrier deck than any of its peers. It is the least difficult to land and take off from a carrier deck, and again-it’s the most durable and maintainable.
If you have the best plane in the world, but have to launch it with a fraction of its capability from a carrier deck, then it’s like you’re using a far inferior weapon in practice. The F-18 delivers on its promises.
To the layperson, it may not jump off the page. But the measure of a warplane is return on investment. And the F-18, by that measure, wins.
You sir have made my day, 6 months later.
In terms of looks, the F-18 looks more sleek to me than the stubby F-35.
F-22 can still take it out. If only Congress didn’t so shortsightedly cancel the program, there would most definitely be a multirole variant in the skies.
So what do you think about an F-35?
@@shutout951 theoretically the replacement for much of the f-18 fleet, but the massive complexities of the program are hindering its deployment to such a degree that it’s hard to really feel confident about the carrier variant at this stage.
For NATO as a whole, it’s necessary, as it’s really the only means of bringing air power to the South China Sea in a conflict. We’re married to it, whether we like it or not. There’s no alternative, at the moment.
In terms of capabilities, there’s no comparison. Its suite of sensors and level of integration provides unprecedented levels of awareness and precision. That said, its extraordinary maintenance costs and complexity are massive hurdles, particularly for the naval variant which can’t afford to have planes sitting below deck, or risking accidents. For that reason alone, the super hornet will remain in service for the foreseeable future.
As a Canadian I still love seeing this beautiful aircraft fly
,
Beautiful? Might want to look at the Su 30SM2 , bigger, predatory and more menacing compared to the hornet or super hornet.
@@LordEmperorHyperion That's not exactly what beautiful means...
@@LordEmperorHyperion Might want to look at the F15E Eagle. Bigger, less losses (Eagle has 0, compared to the su-30 having eleven), and has a sharping more "menacing" look.
Having lived in Cold Lake for 15 years I have seen many CF18’s
My son took me on a Tiger Cruise on CVN68 some years back. Gotta love them bugs. Nimitz was carrying legacy F-18Cs (USMC VMFA-323), FA-18Es/Fs (USN VFA 154 & VFA-146) and FA=18Gs (USN VAQ 142)
December 2013 tiger cruise from Hawaii to San Diego?
2017 Nov/Dec... yes, Pearl to San Diego
After my time on board 92-95
Was on the Nimitz from 84-89 and we were just getting Hornets on my last cruise. Pretty sure they were replacing the A-7 squadrons with them. Also when I first got to the ship, there were 2 Tomcats on the hanger with 2 kills showing. They had shot down 2 Libyan planes that thought they could play rough.
I remember as a kid I always picked the F/A-18 on Ace Combat 5. It didn’t matter if I was gonna be facing advanced fighters, I picked the hornet. I just remember falling in love with it’s looks as soon as I saw it. I guess it also helped that the hornet was the first fighter I’d ever sat in.
Loved it. Worked on them for 8 years at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada. Specialized on the F404-GE-400 engine.
just got a low alt buzz here in sudbury a few weeks ago coming out of Quebec awesomeness scared the shit outta me I knew right away what it was fucking awesome
Saw em in 2004 in Cold Lake, back when I was an air cadet on aircrew survival. They were training over our heads for the airshow which I got to see! We even heard em off in the distance doing live fire exercises! Seriously cool
I saw a pair of them flying a circuit above Thunder Bay years ago. They must be rather long in the tooth by now.
I do not know who wrote this, but speak for yourself. The F/A-18 very much so won my heart. i cannot express my love for this aircraft.
Canada's most loved aircraft after the Avro Arrow. Two engines are comforting when on long Arctic patrols. Ivan fears what could happen should they misbehave.
Loved seeing em drown out my instructors as an air cadet in the bushes of Cold Lake! They were flying overhead regularly, but also training for the airshow coming up in a couple days (Which I also got to attend!). One of my coolest aviation experiences. Also, it was sick getting to see them in Comox, when the airshows were running! I will never forget those experiences :)
I wonder how far we've gotten bringing the used F-18s we bought from Oz up to readiness ...
The twin engines is the same reason Australia went with them over the f16. We fly the super Hornets and f35s now, but there are quite a few legacy Hornets in mothballs being considered for feasibility in Ukraine.
There's also a avionics difference between the F/A 18 and our beloved CF-18.
TH-camr Ward Carrol just posted a video yesterday with the guy who was Blue Angel #1, when the Angels switched to the F/A-18. Interestingly the first batch of 18's the Angels got were actually pre-production/development versions that were not carrier capable. It's worth a watch!
Ward's channel is a must see!
I think one of his videos mention F18 (and the E/F versions) is shorter range than the F14 so requires more aerial refueling or carrier group be closer to target. Plus other deficiencies. Maybe "experts" can elaborate. Also in that same video by Ward is our time in Afghanistan took a considerable toll on carrier aircraft having to put in lots more flight hours over the years which significantly aged the aircraft fleet. In comparison when Navy first procured they expected these will last X amount of years which now that number is lower.
@@wrightmf The Super Hornet has abysmal range because its pylons are canted outwards in order to improve clearance (i.e. allow for bigger weapons to be carried on them). That does give it nearly the same if not better payload than the F-14, which is quite impressive given its much smaller size, and even moreso when you remember the Super Hornet still has better low-speed characteristics than the Tomcat, but the drag penalty means the Super Hornet has a combat radius of just 400nmi with a full payload, even with three 1000 gallon drop tanks. The last carrier aircraft with such a short full-payload combat radius was the A-1 Skyraider.
Ward Carrol is awesome, love his channel. He is a good guitar player as well!
@@GintaPPE1000 I'm fairly certain everything you just said about range was wrong,.
The Rhino's wiki combat radius is ~67nm less. It's not Abysmal range, ferry is definitely better than the F-14. The canted pylons are negligible at subsonic speeds.
Do you have any sources? I really don't feel like breaking out the NFM and DI's ATM.
Combat radius is very subjective too, loaded correctly your "combat radius" could be 1,200 miles.
Points of quibble - 1) Around 9:20 you mention the F-14 was being replaced by the F-22. However, there has never been a carrier version of the F-22. The F-35 would fill that role much later.
2) While the F/A-18 was always limited to 7.5 Gs (not 9 Gs), when loaded out with fuel tanks, missiles and bombs, the G-limit was much lower due to the structural limitations of the wings and weapons rails. Also, until GPS guidance was introduced, the inertial guidance systems were sensitive to high-Gs that could lock up the gyroscopes causing failures.
The thing I remember most about the Hornet was the dramatic shift to sensor-based predictive maintenance. This was a big change from replacing parts at arbitrary flight hour times or fix-on-fail. Pulling engines after a certain amount of cumulative stress allowed the fleet to plan major maintenance around operations much more effectively.
Another under-rated aspect of a legit carrier workhorse.
The "built in test" capabilities in avionics were well ahead of the previous generations of aircraft but there were no "prognostics" built into the aircraft. Many components were tracked based on fatigue life expended (FLE), cycles expended, flight hours, landings and calendar time. Each engine had 30ish components that were individually tracked.
The RAAF has just retired the last of its legacy Hornets. Nearly 40 years of front-line service. The RAAF loved it for all the reasons mentioned.
You increased my appreciation for Northrup with this. I already knew they made easily maintained stuff with the F5, but they did that with the FA18 as well. It's too bad the YF-23 didn't win that competition, or that someone didn't come in and scoop it up for another project like they did for the YF-17.
Well, Lockheed needed another contract to stay on business....
And lemme stop any annoying people here. I, have not, seen evidence that the Raptor is better than the Black Widow II
I got to tour the Northrop facility where they were making these back in 1989, and I was allowed to grab some of the offcuts of carbon fiber. I even got an F/A-18 pin. It was so amazing!
The carrier based Hornet is a beast. One of the best (if not the best)carrier based fighters on the planet.
My father in law was an aviation structural mechanic on both the F-14 and F/A-18 jets. He said the F-14 was far more complex but absolutely beautiful and the favorite of most Navy personnel. But the F/A-18 however, quickly became the most loved and revered because of it's simplicity, abilities and dependability among himself and his fellow mechanics. Take any trip to the Virginia Beach area and you will get your daily greeting each morning known as a " VA Beach Wakeup Call" as they roar past your hotel and shake the foundations: and there is nothing cooler to see and hear!
And for the record, I think the F/A-18 is one of the most beautiful jets there is!
I know I'm seeing this late, but I will comment anyway. The F-14 didn't have many kills because we weren't in a hot war. When the F-14 was engaged by an enemy, it is undefeated. The Iraqi Airforce realized how effective the original Tomcat was and ran from it during any engagement. Yes, there were some issues with compressor stalls that were addressed with the new engine. Yes, 8 pilots dies in crashes. Which is a tragedy. However, consider the number of sorties during 34 years in service and the rigors of carrier based ops in your calculation. Thay is an outstanding record. As far as the F-22 is concerned, it isn't a Naval aircraft, and the F-14 was never an Airforce aircraft. Why you mentioned it isn't even understandable. Had the F-14 been updated, it would certainly give an F-18 a run for its money and certainly out class it in air superiority. The biggest reason the F-14 was retired was because the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the US as the only military superpower. So the Navy went with an aircraft that fulfilled a different role for small regional conflict. The F-18 is a formidable aircraft in its own right, but don't disrespect the F-14.
Good video! Few things wrong about the F-14, F-22, and F-35, but on the whole, great watch, as always!
🤣 it is the same thing in every video of Simon : wrong facts. Too bad
And a great many things wrong about the Hornet...
20:50 - The F-14 Tomcats were not replaced with F-22 Raptors. They were replaced by F-18s. Raptors are not capable of Naval deployment.
What the hell do you mean! The F-18 is a gorgeous aircraft!
Damn skippy it is!
Sorry, I'm more of a Gen. 5 guy.
Hell yeah. Looks great with a NASA paint job, we have a few research F18s at AFRC.
AMEN!!
The F/A-18A was popular in Australia, as it was our primary front line fighter for over 20 years.
I would maybe expect the same from Canada?
In fact they were so important to both countries at the time that both countries designed and implemented a major modification in the leading extension fence to reduce vibrations in the twin tails to extend airframe life.
The USN later adopted this modification themselves.
Canadian here. We love hornets. The RCAF has a demo hornet in a special paint livery every year. It and the snowbirds are the best part of every airshow.
Side story. One holiday weekend I was stuck in traffic on the highway in my hometown (driving truck sometimes means work when others are playing lol). As I sat miserable on the highway I hear a sound that could only come from one thing. The demo hornet was doing a show over our beachfront but in doing so kept making low passes over the highway as if it were making attack runs. Best traffic jam ever lol
as an aussie in perth i have been lucky to see some planes flying overhead but i dont think any of them are hornets :( can only imagine what these beasts would sound like overhead. P.S. cant wait for some subs thare beyond 50% functionality
The Canadians also fixed our F-86….thank you…again.
@@darbyheavey406 USAF F-86's?
The Aussie CAC Sabre was very heavily modified with a fuselage changes, a larger intake to fit the more powerful RR engine, and 20mm cannons. Not sure if the Canadians had anything to do with that one?!
Growing up watching the F/A 18 blue angels, I have always been fascinated by it. I always thought it was a beautiful jet. I would love to see videos of it's fire power.
I lived near a Canadian Base all my youth and seeing them fly over my parents house....
Will always be one of my top favorite aircraft....
It's magnificent.
Excelent video. Just one small correction, the F-35 only has 4 internal hardpoints but when stealth is not needed it has an additional 6 external hardpoints bringing it to a total of 10 hardpoints.
True, wherefore the F-35 is a failure. If you use external hardpoints then the plane is no longer stealthy. Since the F-35 is a one trick pony, the F-35 is no match for a competent 4th generation fighter in unstealthed mode.
If the F-35 merely uses internal hard points, then the bomb load is abysmal - it will need at least two missiles for self defence. Therefore, it is not very useful as a strategic bomber...
And i haven't even started to talk about the cost and reliability.
@Kilian Klaiber I assume you're basing this off the flawed report of f35 vs f16? Using prototype aircraft with limiting software and no helmet display ?
@@kilianklaiber6367 I think you missed the part that "when stealth is not needed". You only need stealth before you get air superiority. To attack ground targets with a non stealth fighter you only risk loosing a lot of aircraft and pilots. If you use the F-35 then the survival rate is a lot higher. But perhaps you think it is better to risk the life of the pilots in order to carry more ordnance before air superiority is attained.
@@swe-timberwolf3642 So stealth is not the end all and be all of fighter jet design!?
Then the F-35 is a failure because stealth is its unique selling point. When stealth is needed, then the F-35 is largely useless due to its abysmal weapon load.
@@kilianklaiber6367 hahaha, I think you are missunderstanding things. Thanks to the F-35s stealth it is absolutely essential. It give the ability to go in and strike the enemies positions without risking the plane or the pilot. Sure it has a smaller payload and you might need to do more sorties because of this, but I think the pilots families sleep better at night knowing that their loved ones stands a good chance of coming home to them again.
Bunch of stuff I didn't know about the Hornet. Ironic that an aircraft that could hurt the pilot because of it's power has such an amazing safety record. Truly an amazing aircraft!
I didn't think it was actually possible for a human being to find the F/A-18 unsexy.
Compared to a F-14 or F-16? Yeah, pretty boring, generic looking plane.
@@TentaclI mean, I PERSONALLY think the 16 looks too flimsy, and the 14 just looks like an overgrown animal. The 18, in MY PERSONAL OPINION looks perfect.
@@mr.radovic702 Well, there is no right or wrong here obvisouly, we are talking about aesthethics, but IMHO the F-14 looks like a classic Ferrari - something like a 250 GT - Curvy, sexy, needlessly expensive - while the F-18 is a Lexus - great cost benefit, decent looking but nothing to write home about.
@@Tentacl how could you call the hornets "generic" in contrast to the f-16 which is pure elevator music put into an airframe.
@@eikonise lmao
Hi!
First of all, I love to watch your videos and gain my knowledge on the interesting things you discover on this channel.
Keep up the good stuff!
I served as a conscript in Finnish Air Force few years back and our base, the Support air squadron had few Hornets among other (mostly transportation) planes such as Learjet 35A/S's and CASA C-295's.
I think it's still a great fighter although it sure is quite old.
In fact the Finnish Air Force is replacing it with the F-35 Lightning II from 2025 towards…
I have this one story about the F-18 though…
One time I was sitting in an military police van near the runway with one of our bases senior officers and got to see a couple of Hornets took off.
When pilots hit their afterburners to full power and storm past us, the whole VW Transporter was literally shaking by the sound waves those jets created.
I will never forget how they turned their noses straight upwards and disappeared to the clouds (it was a rainy day) with a loud rumble.
I'm not a fighter pilot, but I can tell you that just by hearing the thunder of Hornets fly by with afterburners on full thrust the noise still gives me goosebumps, every now and then.
Definitely up for a weapons system video series. Just came across your various channels about two months ago and I've been hooked.
The embodiment of "boring, but practical" and "beware the quiet ones."
they are not quiet. MCAS Miramar flight line. not as bad as the f 35 though
Not sure that 9 G's of g force is "boring"
F/A18 is top three best-looking planes ever made! the Black/White gold NASA one is stunning. been working on a list and it top 5 minimum. SR71, Grippen, Rafale, Dehavland (many but,,)dragonfly DH3 i think. and the F18 not totaly sold on what prder these are in but sr71 likely #1 F22 and fat amy f35.
I think the F 16 has the sexiest lines of any fighter jet, but F 18 is up there for sure. Also agree, theSRr71 is for sure the most gorgeous plane of any type - have you seen one in person? It's extremely impressive and can be viewed at the national air and space museum just outside of D.C. Cannot recommend that museum highly enough.
I feel almost all 4th gen fighters are really sexy looking. Current 5th gen stealth figters looks quite samy. Main reason is that there are only so many shapes that are both stealthy and airodynamic. 4th gen fighters the only consideration was airodynamics hence we got all those sexy planes :)
I was an Aviation Electrician (AE2 AW/SW) on the F/A18C while in the Navy. I loved the Hornet and am so glad to see it getting much deserved love.
UNSEXY???? Time to get your glasses replaced. I've loved the Hornet (and its spawn) since it first arrived on the scene. I remember watching videos of the "testing" of the original Hornet way back in the early 80s. The "catch" the arresting wire while still airborne and watching it "plop" onto the deck was especially thrilling (and demonstrated how strong those main gear have to be.). Have watched the Blue Angels many times including when they were flying the "Legacy" Hornets, and now the new Super Hornets. I'm even sitting here keying this in, drinking coffee from a (Boeing) mug that has a F/A-18 Super Hornet on it. One of my favorite aircraft ever.
The F-35 is capable of carrying roughly the same payload as the hornet when external hard points are used, in stealth configurations ranges are pretty close, especially the C with its massive internal fuel load.
When hanging things under the wings, the Super Hornet can do it with less cost. When stealth and coordination are needed, then the F35C's expense is justified. Super Hornets will carry the heavy loads the C can't.
But can the f-35 fly as long and not wreck the side of its airframe by using its afterburners?
@Motoroid ARFC1852 in the Super Hornet is a lot cheaper to fly and maintain .but I'm no expert, just my opinion.
@@angelicaflanagan3483 cheaper to fly and maintain isn’t an option thing, it either is or isn’t and your opinion doesn’t factor in to it
If you want to try flying one of these little guys I highly recommend DCS World's FA18C module. It's a fully simulated hornet and you can enjoy spending dozens of hours navigating the various menus and buttons to figure out how to turn it on and drop a bomb lol.
Don't forget the Supercarrier launch and landing with fully operational TACAN and ICLS. There is even "Autoland" now which I haven't investigated. Still trying for that no. 3 wire!
DCS is the most fun game ever
Yeah....a video game is so the same lol
This was an especially awesome video. You guys hit on such an awesome range of topics across all your channels.
This guy is a master informationist
The F-18 Hornet (and its pilot) became the most amazing airplane in my humble opinion when I witnessed a demonstration of its incredible engine power and low-speed maneuvering abilities during an airshow I attended back in the 1990's. The solo pilot approached down the runway center line from the left and slowed down while pitching up the nose. At the point the Hornet reached the middle of the public viewing area, the plane was going slower than apparent stall speed, seeming to be held up mostly by the thrust of the screaming engines, as the wings were at too high an angle to generate much lift. You could see the wing flaps and tail surfaces making constant quick adjustments to maintain control. The pilot then held this nose-high attitude while slowly executing a full 360-degree turn to port in front of the audience. As the plane came back around, the pilot added more thrust, accelerated and climbed away.
To see a conventional airplane perform that sort of maneuver right down on the deck was nothing short of amazing. A Hawker Harrier also performed its routine that same day, but what the pilot of that Hornet demonstrated was far more impressive to me, and that's what sticks in my mind all these years later. I haven't been able to find a video showing this complete maneuver anywhere, and I wonder if, at some point, it was deemed too risky to continue performing. Here's a link to a TH-cam video that shows a small portion of what I witnessed that day, beginning at about the 1:29 mark: th-cam.com/video/eEPoD_VRABc/w-d-xo.html - now imagine the plane holding the attitude you see there at 1:43 and making a full 360-degree turn. It was absolutely jaw-dropping.
it also had less than half the combat range of the older A-6 intruder, meaning it needs 2-3 times the tankers that an Intruder would need, or require the carrier to be closer to shoreline and risk exposure to antiship threats.
The Super Hornet has even a slightly lower range.
What this means is that aircraft have to have a higher operational tempo and run more missions than previously. More takeoff and landing cycles, more time in air for pilots, more stress for personnel and equipment.
The fact that the title says "unsexy" feels like a personal attack. The F/A 18 is the sexiest plane in existence.
I think you need to ask either Iran or Iraq about how many kills the f14 has Simon 🤔
Yeah, he might be forgiven because it's not a video about the F14, but man he really missed the point with the F14 when he called it "failed"
The context here was to explain the specific costs for the US Navy. That said, Iran's F-14 usage is probably why the US never needed to use theirs. Iran absolutely shredded the Iraqi Soviet-based AF.
@@colinmarshall6634 When the Iraqi pilots saw they were getting lit up by the AWG-9 radar, their response was, "RUN AWAY."
I wonder in his tomcat video does he mention just when the whole programme was about to get cancelled due to cost over runs and delays the Shah of Iran ordered the state bank of Iran to loan Grumman to money to get the programme back on track....the author Tom Cooper even makes mention of this in his book "Iranian F-14 Tomcat units in combat" by Osprey Publishing.
@@katherineberger6329 yep...and where did they run to....IRAN.
The F/A-18 is a BEAUTIFUL bird sir!
Compared to what?.. Think it looks better than the F-14, or 15, or 16? Or the 22 or 35?
It's undeniably the ugliest of the modern fighter fleet. Granted, that still does not make it UGLY.. I'm almost saying she was the ugliest in the Miss USA contest here, aren't I?
@@bliglum I wasn't comparing it to anything, simply stating a fact. The F-14 will always be my favorite and I appreciate the beauty those you mentioned, lol you do you good sir
Edit : if I was comparing I'd do it by size more than anything, so F-14 > F-15, F/A-18 > F-16...
F-18’s legacy remains as a revolutionary fighter, easy to fly and land, lethal in a turning fight, maneuverable, easy to maintain, excellent for Marine infantry support, fast, versatile, true multi role capabilities and ground attack.
I never thought much about the
F/A 18 Hornet, but after watching your video I have a real respect for this under rated aircraft! I'm guilty of being an F-14 Tomcat fan, but all the numbers and facts you covered allowed me to see what an amazing aircraft the F/A 18 Hornet has been!
"Compared to the Tomcat the Hornet didn't leap off the screen," That's an unfair comparison, the F-14 is the most fighter looking fighter ever built, it somehow looks meaner than any other jet fighter ever built. It's ludicrously photogenic.
Su-27 family matches it for photogenicity
Ludicrously photogenic - you have a nice way with words 👍
The super hornet finally got the recognition it deserved in top gun 2
When Simon quoted that low kill count for the Tomcat, he must have been referring strictly to the American victories using that type. Iran claimed many victories against Iraq with theirs.
Can we trust anything iran says though?
@@Eirik36 They definately shredded the iraqs there were outside observers on both sides
There are a number of inconsistencies between this video and others that discuss the history of the F-18. The F-18 was initially intended to replace aging F4 phantoms and A7 Corsair II. The A-12, which was cancelled was intended to replace the A-6 Intruder and to fulfill many other roles like ASW, Prowler replacement etc. The F-18 didn’t have the long range or payload capacity to replace the A-6. The F-14 was intended to be replaced by the NATF but that never happened. The Super Hornet came out of the ashes of the A-12 and NATF with a significant range and payload improvement. The Hornet is a great plane that had to take on more than originally intended when the Navy it’s started development and it was a cost effective program. Given US success since the Cold War, maybe everything worked out for the best.
My dad was an NFO in the S-3 Viking, spoke very highly of the Hornet squadrons he was deployed alongside on his various tours.
Funnily enough, as you mentioned, the Hornet replaced his plane in its primary role (submarine hunting) before he went on to (in my opinion) one of the coolest aircraft the US has ever made: the Ea-6B Prowler, the KING of electronic warfare.
But then along comes a souped up FA-18E with its cannon replaced with a compact version of the Prowler’s EW suite. Yes, my dads SECOND plane got replaced by the EA-18G Growler 😂
Not that he complained. He was retired when that happened, and took me to an air show where the Growler was being shown off so he could appreciate (I.e. geek out) about the Navy’s new EW king.
The Hornet may not be as “sleek” or “talked about” as the Raptor or the Spirit or whatever flavor of the month the Air Force trundles out, but it will be a LOOOOONG time before the American flying workhorse of the FA-18 and the FA-18E are gone.
I still love the S-3 and the EA-6B though 😝
3:39 the end of the golden era
6:55 origins
12:54 cost
14:11 survivability
15:10 durability
16:15 flexibility
17:56 firepower
19:24 legacy
O7 (that's a salute and it's for you, you noble prince of youtube)
The most unsexy thing about it is that the port-side vertical stabilizer (i.e., the left tail fin) was chopped off in the thumbnail.
Is it as voluptuous as the F-22, or as iconic and badass as the F-14, or downright beautiful as the P-51?
Maybe not, however, the Hornet is still a very good looking plane, especially when it doesn't have a bunch of fuel tanks strapped to it. We really couldn't have asked for a better workhorse for the Navy.
From Growlers to Super Hornets, this airframe is already legendary!
was literally about to say something similar, it's a damn sexy aircraft imho.
@@armbusk I personally agree! Wasn't she the first fighter with leaning vertical stabilizers?
@@kayliibensen387 it's the first one that comes to mind(not considering prototypes obviously), there may be some old experimental ww2 stuff, but i do think this is the first proper use yes.
I'm sure someone will correct us if we're mistaken, either way, I can't wait for the next Blue Angels display near me. It's been too long since I've seen one of these things IRL!
I’ve never heard the F18 described as ugly or unsexy. She’s a beautiful, unique airframe, sleek, thin, and above all, tight; thin fuselage, stubby wings on her hips, and two large tight engines. I always loved the design of the fuselage. So I’m a little confused by this narrative that shes ugly?
Plus, Blue Angels? She looks gorgeous in a blue and gold paint job.
Simon "The F18 is boring and safe. " also Simon "The F18 could break your bones and knock you unconscious, it was a beast." Pick one Fact Boy. LOL As one of the many Marines that supported the FA18 we knew it was badass from the very beginning. I don't know who's opinions you were quoting but they didn't know what they were talking about.
My family was stationed on Iwakuni twice. The second time I was a teenager and I would take the bus to the flight line to watch the hornets.
@@tenshi66 I was stationed at Iwakuni for 2 years. My job was next to the runway. I was awesome to watch the planes takeoff. Running along the seawall as planes came in was so cool.
@@mrtlsimon I dreaded the harriers everytime I got anywhere near penny lake when I ran the sea wall. Dad was a tech and I could always tell when the harriers were using the hell out of the landing pad when he got home. Guy would be stupidly angry. And hoarse. Because he would have spent his day yelling to talk to his techs.
Yes please do a video of weapons! And how about one on the F-18 E/F?!
Your video brought up a comparison to the old A-4 Skyhawk. It was smaller, less expensive, and required much less maintenance hours per flight hour, much like your review here of the Hornet. Maybe a video on the A-4 is in order?
I noticed you didn't mention that while it lost to the YF-16 when the USAF was looking for a smaller fighter aircraft, the then YF-17 performed well enough that the USN grabbed it up & it became the F/A-18. Here in Canada it's loved as much as the Avro Arrow, & has served for decades.
My first experience with the Hornet was in school at NAS Pensacola, I was lucky to be stationed there at that time of year as I got to watch the Blue Angels practice on my way to lunch as they're stationed there as well. I admit, I wasn't thrilled when VFA-102 deployed with the Kitty Hawk (nice to see the Diamondback's livery at 8:19 again, even if that's back when they were a Tomcat group). The Tomcat was iconic and there was resentment about them being phased out, but the sailors that worked on the flight deck and hanger bay told me their biggest advantages, not only could they fit 3 Hornets in the space of 2 Tomcats, but they only required 1/3 of the maintenance hours (shortened to 1/4 of it over the years it seems, learned something new). The E/A-6 Prowler being replaced with the E/A-18G Growler was a concern, but it's proven itself up to the electronic warfare tasking.
3:22 F-18 wasn’t introduced in 1974. That was the F-14.
CORRECTION...The F-16 which was built in the same time period as the Hornet could also achieve 9g's. No worries, still enjoyed the vid. 😉👍✌️
The original Hornet was limited to 7.5 G, and would loose the rate fight to the Falcon.
The Eagle and Viper could both pull 9gs and the Eagle had a better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. I love his channel but he gets fed a fair amount of erroneous data.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus the current hornets are limited to 7.5 as well.
Yeah, I was thinking that the F-16 could pull more G's.
Didn’t Maverick pull 10 g’s on his FA18 and therefore decommissioning the aircraft since it was subject structural stress beyond it’s specs?
I grew up always being a fan of the Hornets, maybe it´s because i liked how much they could do, how versatile they were, simply, me being german, i liked their efficiency.
There is a story about a senior Australian RAAF pilot testing a hornet in the US before we bought some. As speed and at altitude he cut the throttles dead, paused and then applied full power. The engines spooled down and then spooled up again. The senior USAAF pilot in the back started to apologize for the time it took but the Aussie cut him off, explaining that the older Mirages simply wouldn't have coped with that kind of abuse.
I knew the hornet was inferior in capability to the tomcat and was forced upon the US Navy instead of updating the systems and capabilities of that airframe. A wasted opportunity IMO. But they were a modernized medium twin that was cheaper to own and run. They couldn't project power as far as easily but you tend to fly more hours and get more done in aircraft if they're cheaper to run while still being competent.
Well, it's been the perfect plane for Australia's fighter-bomber needs for 40 years (albeit finally being replaced by F-35s) with 3 squadrons of Super Hornets in place to serve as bomber & jammer planes for decades to come. I felt relief at that latter decision because the F-35 is still an unknown quantity in war whereas the Hornet's been as reliable as can be. Our Air Force seems to have the same needs as the US Navy generally- a reliable, durable, versatile, long-range bird.
One of life's many mysteries that anyone could ever describe the F/A-18 as "Unsexy". All of the Hornet variants are mean sexy beasts and are my personal favourite combat aircraft right after the F-15-C and E. The F-14 was beauty that was retired before her prime, I think. And the F-35, so called "Fat Amy", is a beautiful beast that will surprise quite a few haters when her time comes (give some love to sexy fat girls). Otherwise enjoyed this video history of a vary capable fighter whose variants will still be relevant after its original F/A-18 pilots are grandparents.
I find the F/A-18 Hornet to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever!
The F16 was chosen over the F18 by the AF, perhaps a direct comparison of them would be a good video?
I’m an Air Force brat. I loved seeing our airplanes. I even did a stint of my own. My favorites are the U-2, SR-71, and the Warthog. But then, I was in intelligence, so I’m prejudiced.
One of the most sobering sights in my life was at a SAC base: a huge flightline with many B-52s at standby in case of an attack from the Soviet Union. It was the 1960s, and not long after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
For a view of that era, I recommend the novel Alas Babylon by Pat Frank or Failsafe by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.
The F/A18 is absolutely gorgeous. As an Aussie I'm sad to see them go.
I grew up in Newcastle, very close to the Williamtown RAAF base (affectionately called the Hornet's Nest). I'm also sad to see them go.
fear not, super hornets are r
staying for some decades
1 of the oldest best jets to have been concocted!!
😃👍👍
* cuntcockted
@@CallMeByMyMatingName LOL
Well if you wanna discredit the F18 that's entirely your viewpoint cos it ain't mine 😅
Such a teenage response, immature and crude haha
I could've watched you do another 2 hours at least on this awesome aircraft, Simon. Thanks for delivering such a respectful piece of content on this magnificent aircraft.
F-18 is super sexy, you’re dead wrong on that Simon.
When I hear the words “fighter jet”, the first thing that pops into my head is the top down silhouette of an F-5. The F-18 is basically the child of the F-5...with better everything, including looks.
While the F-14 Tomcat is superior to the F/A-18E in every regard including speed, agility, manœuvrability, air to air and air to ground combat, one thing I rarely see people talk about is the many redundancies the F/A-18C has in case of battle damage.
Not only are the engines robust and reliable, the flight controls feature 4, not 2 but 4 independent hydraulic systems which shut off in case of a leak, the electronic fly-by-wire system has 1 digital backup, 1 analog backup, AND a "manual linkage", the computer understands when a flight surface is lost and compensates to keep the aircraft flying straight, it's absolutely amazing the technology that went into the Hornet just to bring the pilot back home
The Hornet may not be as sexy as the F-14 or carry as much payload as an A-6 but it proved you can be a Jack of all trades and also a master of all.
Then why did the Super Hornet come about if the Hornet was a master of all?
@@MotoroidARFC It's bigger and newer. duh
@@Triskster no. It's because the "master of all" fell short in many areas which was made more obvious once the Intruders were retired. That's why they made the Super Hornet to make up for those shortfalls and got rid of the "master of all" legacy Hornets as their replacements came in. There's no point of having a carrier if its strike aircraft are short legged and incapable of carrying heavy loads.
@@MotoroidARFC The F-18 served from 1984 till 2018. Never said it could not be improved. It also doesn't have the interceptor ability of an F-14. It replaced some of the best aircraft ever built and did a fine job.
@@Triskster you said it was a master of all when it was not. The Hornet was not the "master of all". A Super Hornet is much closer to being a "master of all" than a Hornet will ever be.
Damn, always loved the Hornet more then the Tomcat because of Independence day. It always looked very sexy to me. The only aircraft that captured my imagination even more was the F-22
The Hornet and its successors have a "playful" look when flying, if one can say that of lethal fighter jets.
I'm looking forward to the video you will eventually be doing on the Super Hornet, it sounds like a very interesting variant.
Simon mentioned the possibility of separate videos for individual weapons. I for one would absolutely tune in for a series on aviation armaments.
Many of the points you make contradict what I've heard/read about it. While it was indeed praised for it's reliability and ease of maintenance, it was found lacking in acceleration, speed, range and bring-back capability(how much fuel/ordinance it could carry when landing on the carrier.)
The super hornet was designed specifically to remedy many of these problems.
That being said I think it's an awesome jet. Also one of my favourite DCS modules.
2001 cruise on the Stennis with 3 F/A-18 squadrons and one F-14 squadron. The RADAR shop in AIMD had 2 different benches for the Hornets (different generations of RADAR) and 4 different benches for the Tom Cats. And the F-14 side of the shop was always swamped with work supporting only one squadron. I played a lot of Halo and GTA3....
Yeah that's what happens when you spend all your money on one plane and none on the other, The Tomcat was woefully neglected and as a result it required far more maintenance so in the future just make sure you blame the DOD for its maintenance issues and not the plane.
@@josephkugel5099 yea it’s funny how the myth about the wings caused maintenance issues was spread because the real problem was the lack of good spare parts. Bio Barnanek talked about how the maintenance issues went away during the Gulf War once the f14 maintenance crews were given good spare parts
I really think this is one of the most sexy looking fighter jets out there.
what are you talking about simon, F/A 18 is sexy af
My dad worked at McDonnell Aircraft from the mid 1950's thru 1976 and he worked on final assembly big hangar just prior to aircraft going to the first flight line. He worked on F101 VooDoo, F3H Demon, F4A/B/C/D/E Phantom and F15 A/B/C... He used to watch the aircraft take off from Lambert air field and he said the F15 was the fastest airplane he ever saw take off. The F15's would take off with full after burner and go straight up. He said they would be out of sight in less than 20 sec. after takeoff and could climb straight up since they had more thrust than weight particularly when on test flights since they usually had no weapons or spare fuel tanks.
this was my favorite airplane when i was a kid. I used to watch Pensacola Wings of Gold all the time and would always wait for the episode where this jet would make an appearance
I'm deeply offended by the title of this video.
"Unsexy" - If a Hornet don't make yo heart beat out of joy then move on cause this comment clearly isn't for you
The F14F that Grumman was offering would have been a better selection than the F18 A-D.
Far superior to the F-18E-G as well.
no doubt...f14D could do everything better then the hornet of that era
F-18 is cool, but I've always liked the F-16 more. Growing up I was obsessed with it. Then I got stationed at a base with 5 squadrons of all F16s and still didn't get sick of them. I was always out on the airfield plane spotting😂Since I worked in airfield management, I got to do my plane spotting right on the runway hold line.
The air force never adopted the Hornet, they had the F-16. The Navy, never replaced the Tomcat with the Raptor.
Unsexy? WTF?
Right? I just commented the exact same thing before I saw your comment.