Royal Marine Reacts To Meet the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: America's Answer to Advanced Air Combat
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Original Video (Meet the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: America's Answer to Advanced Air Combat)
• Video
DREADNOUGHT MEADERY!
RUclips: / @dreadnoughtmeadery
Instagram: / dreadnoughtmeadery
BECOME A MEMBER
www.youtube.co...
SOCIALS
►Instagram @OriginalHuman_
►Twitter: @OriginalHuman_
►Discord: / discord
►Facebook: / originalhuman.videos
►Business inquires: originalhumanbusiness@gmail.com
OTHER CHANNELS
►The Sword And Scabbard: / @theswordandscabbard7909
►OriginalAdventures: / channel
►OriginalHuman Geek: / @originalhumangeek MY EQUIPMENT:
Camera: amzn.to/3W9dL37
Lights: amzn.to/3JtLflf
Key Board: amzn.to/3JpPWwx
Headphones: amzn.to/3JrF15x
Mouse: amzn.to/49P81ij
Monitors: amzn.to/4aLd1FP
Mic: amzn.to/3U7XWXY
Audio mixer: amzn.to/4b2FJSr
StreamDeck: amzn.to/4b4lHH1
Favorite Books:
Norse Mythology: Neil Gaiman
amzn.to/4b24Ftc
The Way of Kings: Brandon Sanderson
amzn.to/3JyHIlu
Breath: James Nestor
amzn.to/3Jur9Y7
We Are Nature: Ray Mears
amzn.to/3JurhXB
The Last Kingdom: Bernard Cornwell
amzn.to/3w4JjN0
When making new jets, they make several prototypes that compete, each with an ascending number. The one that wins is redesignated from 'yf-__' to 'f-__'. For example the yf22 and yf23 competed for the advanced fighter program, the yf22 won and became the f22.
right. they are just sequential design numbers. They don't all make the grade so to speak. they started back in the 60s I believe.
Some of the numbers are pulled out of their ass.
They sometimes start with a number for whatever reason, then each major change to the prototype ascends the number.
2 seater is usually for ground attack, bombardier sits in back, watch top gun maverick.
This is correct. Many jets go through design iterations and only a select few make it to the final testing and selection phase. There may have been F24's and 25's that never saw testing and selection because they didn't pass minimum criteria or because of a more benign reason - The 35 moniker was actually a mistake! "The F-35 began as the experimental X-35 (its competitor being the Boeing X-32). Rumor has it, in the press conference where the X-35 was announced as the winner of the JSF competition, some politician who didn’t know better was asked what the designation of the new aircraft would be. He simply replied “F-35”. Rather than correct his mistake, Lockheed Martin doubled down and accepted the out-of-sequence designation F-35.
Thanks for the knowledge brothers I always wondered about that myself
@@One_foot_in_the_Grave What? Two-seaters didn't even *start out* as ground attack. Most two-seaters were interceptors (S.O.4050, F-4, F-14, etc.) before eventually becoming ground attackers. Using Top Gun Maverick as an example is... very silly. In the movie, they use both the F/A-18E and F variants, with the E being single-seat, and the F being tandem. Both can do ground attack- Maverick himself solos the Paveway drop in the movie. Before that, you had the A, B, C and D variants. The A and B are irrelevant, but the C and D are my main focus; yet again, both are ground attack, but the D was specifically made for the Marine Corps as an interceptor, meaning the man in the back was a 'RIO' (Radar Intercept Officer) in Navy speak, who launches Fox-1 (Semi-Active Radar Homing) and Fox-3 (Active Radar Homing) missiles.
So, no. Two-seaters *aren't* usually ground attack, that's a relatively new trend in the Military Aeronautics industry.
1:45 This is probably going to be an entire encyclopedia of an answer, but here goes. The numeral designation is supposed to be the sequential order the type of plane was ordered for production. So for example P-38 means the thirty-eighth aircraft of the pursuit type (Pursuit being the US army's term for fighter between 1926-1948, afterwards it changed to F).
By the 1960's the numerical designations were getting pretty high (B-70, F-111, C-130, ect), plus the Navy and Marine corp had their own designation systems, and there was very little standardization across the military branches. So in 1962 in order to make cross-branch logistics easier a number of active use Navy and Marine planes were given Air Force designations (FJ Fury became F-1 Fury, F4H Phantom II became F-4 Phantom II, A2F Intruder became A-6 Intruder, F3D Skyknight became F-10 Skyknight, and so on) and from then on all plane types regardless of service would be given the same numerical sequence. (Though it has been messed with a bit since we got into the 2000's, but I'll get to that in a minute.)
F-112 through F-116 were used for captured soviet planes flown for testing and evaluation. The F-117 stealth fighter's designation was sliped in right here to avoid drawing attention on documents. The F-118 was a 90's technology demonstrator from Boeing that would be developed into the X-45 UCAV.
There's one more distinction I have to make. If a plane has an X prefix that means it is an experimental technology demonstrator and most likely won't be ordered for serial production. If it has a Y prefix that means it is a prototype and they're still working out the bugs.
Lastly F/A was a designation for multirole fighters that was used in the 90's and early 2000's, but it has since fallen out of favor.
So with all that out of the way I can finally answer your question. The YF-17 was a rival design to the then YF-16. The F-16 obviously got the contract, but around the same time the Navy was looking for a new multirole fighter and really liked the YF-17, so they had it modified for carrier operations and it became the F-18.
F-19 was skipped and there's still a lot of debate why; some believe it was a black project that never saw the light of day, some think it was the original designation for the F-117, and some say it was because Northrop insisted their YF-20 get an even number to sound less like a Soviet plane.
Speaking of which, the YF-20 was an F-5 Tiger II updated with a new engine and 80's tech and planned to be sold as a low-cost export fighter, but ultimately the F-16 beat it in sales and only three planes were ever built.
The F-21 was thirty-three Israeli IFI Kfir fighters leased to the Navy's Top Gun in the 80's to help train their pilots in dogfighting.
Then we have the F-22 and it's legendary rivalry with the YF-23.
Now this is where things get interesting. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was originally just pair of technology demonstrators called X-32 and X-35. Had the US military followed the naming convention it would've received the designation F-24 when it began production, however the press mislabled the X-35 as F-35, and before you knew it everyone and their dog was calling it that and the name just sort of stuck.
And finally B-21 apparently stands for "21st century Bomber" for some bizarre reason (most likely a PR stunt).
Definitely a pr stunt on the B-21 as it had a huge reveal with fog machines and light and lasers like it was a concert.
Oh my word you awesome person YOU😯❣️. THAT my darlin, encyclopedia or not, was absolutely THE most amazing 🤩 thing that I have read on the Internet, I promise 🙏🏻, my word at least in the last few months, so THANK YOU, you precious one for such amazing information and presented in a way that was not only interesting, but captivating as well by your style of narrating. You should be a teacher shug cause you would make a great 👍 one🤩❣️. Wherever, and whoever ya are, again puddin, thank you, and I hope ya have a wonder-filled rest of yer week 😁🙏🏻❣️
Very helpful and yea thank you
Why was the F-117 designed and put into service before the F-22 is what confuses me the most. Both are Airforce jets.🤔
@@saplingthrasher23 "F-112 through F-118 were used for captured soviet planes flown for testing and evaluation. The F-117 stealth fighter's designation was sliped in right here to avoid drawing attention on documents."
Second seat in an F18 would be for the WSO or the Weapons Systems Operator (as glorified in the new Top Gun: Maverick movie) - they're handy for advanced targeting and sensor applications and leave the pilot to handle all the pilot duties. It's why the F35 is so good because of all of the advances in computing doing a lot of that WSO lifting for the pilot so they can focus on flying
We have almost the entire alphabet used for our air assets:
A: attack
B: bomber
C: cargo/logistical
E: electronic warfare
F: fighter
H: helicopter
K: fuel tanker
O: observation
Q: drones
R: reconnaissance
T: training variant
U: Utility
X: experimental
Y: production experimental
Pretty sure I missed a few, but you get the idea. Can also mix and match the designations like F/A for birds like the Hornet that are both Fighter and ground attack capable, and the E-18 G which is the electronic warfare version of the Hornet called the Growler and that bird will ruin anyone’s day if they work with radar of any kind. The seat in back on jets that have them are usually for the operation of equipment like radios, radar operator, camera equipment and other things so that the pilot can focus on flying and also act as a second set of eyes. And the B-21 Raider is a whole other beast compared to the B-2 Spirit. And it’s pronounced as twenty one for that bird, if it were an improved B-2 it would have a letter designation behind the numbers to indicate the improved abilities, example: F-15A, B, C, D, E. You treat new letters kind like the new year model of a car since the new one has better “options” and abilities over the previous years model. For example: the F/A-18 E is 25% larger than the prior C and D version, has the diamond shaped intakes to reduce its RCS on radar, has 1 extra weapons pylon on each wing, holds more fuel and has more improvements over the previous versions.
Nerdgasm ended. 😅
It's about time. Lol. The Super Hornet is a workhorse for the US Navy and executes multiple rolls effectively.
Last proposed Tomcat design before the F-14’s total retirement would’ve outclassed even the Super hornet as a Multirole aircraft, with modern avionics and computing systems.
Sadly the F/A-18 suffered from the same issue the F-35 is right now, being way over hyped by is manufacturer and being way obsessed over.
The F/A-18’s have already started to show their problems and age even though the Super Hornets are relatively new.
The Final Proposed Tomcat design would’ve done all what the modern Hornets could do, while keeping the Tomcats long proven airframe, and dominant Air to Air combat and fleet defense role.
@@yeeters2347if what you are saying was true the tomcats would not have been replaced. But they were.
The F-18 must have been greater then the F-14
@@Milkywayboy
As I said, the proposed F-14 wasn’t given the time to even get off the blueprints, and the Navy had the exact same issue the USAF, Navy again, and USMC all have with the F-35 today, blind obsession with it and not looking at the better I took long term, not giving other projects the time to develop.
Now the F/A-18 is causing problems and parts are wearing down incredibly fast for them due to how the Navy has been using them
@@yeeters2347 Just like how the F-23 would have been super-magical-crazy-superior to the F-22, right? Thing is, we have no actual proof that the proposed F-14 update would have been any better at all. Because all we have to go on was what it was 'supposed' to do. What it was advertised as. There is no concrete proof of what it actually would have become. Hypothetical stats and attributes are just that. So, ~hypothetically~ , the proposed F-4 update ~might~ have been better. We cannot know for sure and we never will.
@@James_randomleters
The YF-23 was terrible, the F-22 was the far better decision, don’t worry I’m not one of those YF-23 hipsters
You should look into the AWACS aircraft. They keep mentioning the network of networks but the heart of it is usually the awacs craft nearby.
My guess is as more F-35Cs join carrier air wings, the air to air mission will be taken and the Super Hornets will be more dedicated ground attack birds
IRST isn't a data-link system. It's a infrared targeting system to lock weapons using an IR signature instead of just relying on a radar lock. It's a sort of secondary system at medium to short range to target potential threats, where in certain situations it can be better than radar tracking since it's more difficult to jam an IRST scanner or the similar EODAS on the F-35. Most newer 4th gens have them equipped standard, but F-22 never got one since IRST tech wasn't as capable when F-22 was designed and was deemed unimportant for F-22's role.
Su-27 Flankers and variants like the Su-30, Su-33, and J-11 all have IRST systems as standard. It was one of the only areas where Russian fighters had the advantage on American fighters. It allowed them to operate with radars turned off, and they could lock and fire short and medium ranged IR guided missiles like the R-73 and R-27T/ET without being detected, an early form of stealth. The F-22 was also capable of firing weapons with radar turned off, but required friendly aircraft to transmit radar information via datalink.
He was talking about the SATCOM
If you make the thrust to weight ratio good enough, you can even make bricks fly.... I think I heard that there was an F15 missing its right wing, but it was still able to get back and land because the ratio was so high.
There’s video too…that Eagle flew a mile with the wing GONE to land.🦅🦅
Israel training mission collision. The wing was GONE. Manufacturer went over and they thought it was a ground collision. The pilot said if you got enough power like a rocket you don't need wings. True story video is on yt
@@jimreilly917 it was 10 miles, but yes it flew with one wing.
@@bluflaam777LSA doh…I knew that 😁
Glad your channel is doin so good man
The second seat isn't typically necessary these days, but Navy doctrine is to use 2-seaters for the FAC role since it requires so much multitasking. Now that the entire fleet is multirole Super Hornets and F-35s, you can see their historical lineage reflected in the numbers painted on the jets. Jets marked in the 100s and 200s are descended from fighter squadrons (VF) that flew the Tomcat, while jets in the 300s and 400s are descendants of attack squadrons (VA) that flew the A-6 and A-7 back in the day.
The plane with the round dome on top is a AWACS.
The E variant singe seat plays mainly an air superiority/ interceptor position whereas the F variant double seater plays more of the attacker/CAS role. Saw a couple E variants come in for a landing at my local airport a couple weeks ago. I could tell because they flew so low in their approach that I could see each one manned by one pilot. You could hear those afterburners at the other end of the metropolitan area for sure! 🤘🇺🇸
The plane you circled on the deck is an AWACS aircraft.
My brother in christ, you haven't done the coolest one. The F-14 Tomcat. Also, with the question on the numbering, look up the 1962 US Tri-Service aircraft designation system. They wanted to consolidate numbering. In regards to the 1 or 2 seat question, the second seat on older planes like the F-14 had RIOs. Radar Intercept Officers. They took the workload off of the pilot. They controlled the radar, they find targets, they track targets, and the pilot fires the missile. The newer planes like the F/A-18F has a WSO. Weapons System Officer. They also take the workload off of the pilot. They control weapons systems and electronic warfare systems
Numbering of aircraft stared before WWII. P-40, P-47, P-51. P for Pursuit evolved into F for fighter. Numbers kept going up to F-100 starting the century series. F-111 was near the end and F-117 was the end. The numbering system for all aircraft went back to '1'.
The YF-17 combined the attack role with fighter into the F/A-18. The F-19 was a filled to deceive the USSR with the F-117. The F-20 Tigershark was an F-5 with the F-16 engine and avionics. The F-21 was the Israeli Kfir. then the YF-22 and YF-23 contest lead to the F-22. The F-35 skips numbers, coming from the X-35 from the X-series of aircraft.
Bombers went from B-70 to B-1, then B-2. The B-21 skipped 3 to 20, as the first bomber of the 21st Century, B-21
The A for Attack has died off due to the many multi-role fighters.
Old fashioned A/C for me was rolling down a window or opening a windwing!
You being a spec opp's Guy I'm guessing The A-10 was possibly one of your first jet vids? I really like your vids + Your different style. Really respect you also being honest at times saying you know little about certain things. Not a lot of ppl these days are as candid or real as you are! & just saying when you said "The F-11 what is it the aHdVahk" lol!! I'm born & bread Bostonian & you NAILED The Boston accent on that! Dual seats are sometimes for training but more times like the case of F-14 it was so complex & advanced a "backseater" was needed. Known as "Rio's" or radar intercept officer, Pilot flies, Rio is busy on the radar "scopes" looking and tracking targets and applying electronic countermeasures. In an area that they didn't have 100% air superiority the Rio would also be highly aware of potential s.a.m. sights and launches. When it comes to s.a.m.'s, you really can't have too many sets of eyes scanning. An awesome video suggestion for you is a well known video of F-16's I believe? It was Iraq, but don't hold me to that as I'm just writing this I'll Google it after. Multiple F-16's (maybe an entire squadron?) Were ingressing their targets when they got LIT up by s.a.m.'s & A.a.a. The "hud" footage has been public for a while. 1 specific F-16 was engaged by like 3 separate surface to air missles. That video very much shows the intricacies of what a pilot goes through, how incredibly physical it is + how much stress it puts on a human body to be pulling 9+ G's repeatedly. I won't reveal the ending I really think yourself + your audience would like to see you do a video on that. I'll Google it & drop more info should you choose to cover it. I appreciate you Bro!! Your positive. You have a respectable, unique background & Your yourself. You don't hop on here to "play a part" like soooo many do. T.Y. Thank You for your service. Please keep doing what your doing! - Brian
Damn, My bad!! It was 6!!! The video I was referring too the 1 specific jet was tageted 6 times by launched, in flight, actively seeking surface to air missles!! The video by Sandbox News, imo is the best but there are many related to the same engagement.
Aircraft with big dish on top is an E -2 C Hawkeye E - Electronic C - Countermeasures it"s up there directing the fighters as to who else is out there. An eye in the sky.
Royal Marines using big words, that's like a US Marine using big words. It's not advisable lol for the butthurt people, I'm a US Marine Vet much love man, love your videos
Simper Fi Bro!
@@frankscully3224 I joined the US Marine Corps 37 years ago. Never once seen an actual Marine butcher the spelling of "semper fi" like that. Not once.
@@rollomaughfling380 never said I was a Marine. I was a Submariner MM3 . Operation Eldorado Canyon etc. look up USS Dallas. I won’t say “ I appreciate your service” you can count on it I Do!
@@rollomaughfling380 not disrespecting you Man. Semper Fidelis.
That plane on the deck you were looking at is the E-2 Hawkeye AWAC
From what I’ve heard the majority of new non-logistic military aircraft will be “optionally manned” meaning they could be piloted both remotely like a drone or by a person in the seat.
What you were circling with your mouse on the aircraft carrier deck is what they call the E-2D Hawkeye, early warning aircraft, their whole mission is to fly around and designate targets for carrier, strike packages and do early warning for the aircraft carrier. Beyond is own radar to track threats that could possibly harm the fleet… so they designate targets for the F/A-18’s and the F-35C’s to destroy or further identify.
A single-seat fighter jet is a combat aircraft that has only one cockpit for one pilot, while a two-seat fighter jet is a combat aircraft that has two cockpits for two crew members. The difference between them depends on the role and design of the fighter jet. That what is it you circled on deck is an AWACS.
if im not mistaken, older jets have two seats because the workload of flying and handeling the weapons was to high for one person. In newer jets computers do much of the work, that's why you don't see modern two seaters anymore. At least that's my guess
That’s the reason man. I remember when I was obsessed with being a pilot I always wanted to be the gunner. Now computers do that job and the pilots also have some advanced HUDs built into their helmets you don’t need that second pilot anymore.
I was on the USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 for 3 years, we carried 4 million gallons of JP-5, besides using it for the planes and helos, it was used for ballast.
There was an F20 it was basically an F5 with a F16 engine and Avionics. When aircraft are being developed they are usually given the YF designator. During it's development the F18 was actually called the YF 17.
I bet it would have hauled ass
The numbers are related to models created, and the chosen number is the one accepted by the military branch.
There was the F-4, F-5,F-14, F-15,F-16,F-18,F-22,F-111,F-117,F-35. The B-21 doesn’t mean it’s an upgrade from the B-2. The F-18 2 seater is used for the weapons officer, just like the F-15. On the F-16 the second seat is for training purposes.
They normally carry 80+ aircraft of various types.
Most of them are in hangers below deck.
React to the f14 tomcat next , the only aircraft that was able to beat the f15 most of the time. Also prototypes are not designated F, they are designated Ys. 2 seats are used for the 2nd person taking over radar and electronics if its a electronic warfare .Single seat can do the same things but its more stress on the pilot.
If I remember correctly, the FA-18 Hornet (YF-17) was the fighter that competed with the F-16 (YF-16) for the Air Force contract back in the 70s. BTW, I just checked and yeah, I was alive back then.😄
The wings on everything in the Navy fold up to save space on the ship. The wings of the F-14 Tomcat swept, instead of folding, and had an oversweep position for parking.
Hey Luke, you got one more teen series fighter to check out… the F-14 Tomcat. Even though it’s been retired since I think since 2006, it’s still a worthy and legendary aircraft. Iran still flys the F-14, though they have no access to spare parts.
I remember you’d like to check out aircraft from all the generations. One good section of aircraft history you should check out from the US is the “century series” aircraft. (F-100 Super Sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger, Republic XF-103 [never made it past mock-up stage], F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, F-106 Delta Dart, F-107 “Ultra Sabre” [radically redesigned Super Sabre, was beaten in competition by the F-105], The F-108 Rapier [proposed Mach 3 interceptor, was cancelled because of estimated high costs noted by president Dwight D. Eisenhower].
Super impsrtant aircraft for the history of the U.S. Air Force.
Would also really like to see some more Found and Explained soon!
To what I can answer your question about the number designations, I’d have to look up on it, but I can tell ya this. There’s no “F-13” bc 13 is considered an unlucky number in the west, and I guess the military agrees with that as well. When stealth was still in its infancy and rumors, the public did refer to the “F-19” as a rumored stealth aircraft. The Northrop F-20 Tigershark is a highly modernized Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II. The F-21 was for a proposed version of the F-16 for India.
All Navy aircraft have folding wings and blades for space savings on the Carrier. the second seat depends on mission. takes some work load off the pilot, helps in combat theater awareness.
The F-104 is a fairly mean fighter. Mean as in it looks like it's a danger to everyone around it and when it was exported to European NATO nations, it got the nickname, "The Widowmaker." That moniker was not in reference to any kind of engagements the pilots got into with enemies, but about the pilots themselves. If you want an absolute historic legend to look at, look into John Paul Stapp. He's a guy who was pretty nuts in his own right, but he got things done for the better.
You should do a video on the f14 Tomcat.
When you have the laser guided bombs you need the second seat for someone to guide the bomb
My understanding is that in high intensity contact the pilots is focused on flying be it aggression or evasive and the rear seat can focus on radar aerial or ground contact and engagement bombing ect
" why would they need two seats "
Has this man never seen top gun and doesn't know what a Rio is
When you asked if they were all hornets yes they were all hornets
Theres multiple reasons why they say attacking a carrier battle group is :poking the hornet's nest"..... :D
A rear seater is electronic warfare officer. Basically the more complex aircraft the 2nd officer
F-12 would have been used if the prototype YF-12 interceptor variant of the A-12 pre-Blackbird
F-13 wasn't used because of superstition.
F-17 designation is missing in the fleet is a result of the aircraft's transformation into the F/A-18
F-19 is a skipped designation, in favor of F-20 for the Northrop F-5G Tiger shark at Northrop’s request to avoid confusion with the Soviet MiG-19. Project was abandoned in 1986.
F-20 did not achieve sales success because the USAF wasn't interested to begin with.
F-21 is a variant of the F-16 designed for the Indian Air Force
F-23 would have been used if the Northrop YF-23 won the ATF "Advanced Tactical Fighter" program
As far as the numbers go the f designation comes after a slue of prototypes. The reason the f111 and f117 are that is before they were commissioned before macnamara decided to reset it when he forced the air force and navy to standardise.
Some fighter designs never get produced, but they are assigned a number. You only see the aircraft that make it to production, so some numbers will be skipped over.
They basicly restarted the numbering system for fighter aircraft back in the early 1960s. The F-4 Phantom was originally meant to be the F-110 Spectre. I believe the last P-series (Pursuit) might have been the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star which served in the Korean war and was redesignated F-80 in service. All the F-100s were the start of the supersonic era of aircraft beginning with the F-100 Sabre.
Of course, the F-117 Nighthawk is the last to use the century series numbering system but that was only to hide its actual purpose as the first stealth bomber. The F-111 Aardvark was the last actual fighter to use the system.
Why did the F-35 break the current numbering system? No clear answer was ever given that made sense to me. I hear that even Lockheed was referring to it internally as the F-24 prior to it being given the F-35 designation. I read once that it was because of the extensive leap in technology that the F-35 represented. But so will every other aircraft that will come after it including the NGAD and the Navy's FA-XX.
This also ignores just how much of a leap the F-22 was and it laid the groundwork both in new capabilities they wanted to pursue along with what issues to avoid for the F-35 (like the F-22 not being modularly upgradeable.) That seems like a weak reason to jump the numbering system.
Anyway, the F/A-18 Hornet was originally the YF-17 and lost the USAF pick to the YF-16. The Navy wasn't happy with the single-engine F-16 and chose the YF-17 instead. I feel the F/A-18 might be one of the most underappreciated workhorses in service.
The F-18 is not a fighter; it is an attack aircraft with enormous armament.
For perspective, there are about 8760 hours in a year. Wheee
Thank you!
Maybe try the next video after few sips 😂😂
Love the content .
Dont you know that sound had the Haji's shitting their pants.
Especially when it's the 30mm on the Warthog who can get right up close and personal!!!
1:45 You can actually watch a video called "Aircraft Designations Explained" by Not What You Think.
Just a little suggestion if you wanna learn what (almost) every letter means on aircrafts
The numbers aren't always in ascending sequence chronologically. For example, the C-17 is significantly newer than the C-130, and the B-1 and B-2 are significantly newer than the B-52.
Ordnance hanging off the wings is attached by pylons that are not as wide as the wings are thick (vertically), so when the air under the wing diverts horizontally around the pylons, its path is still shorter than that of the air passing over the wing, and so it doesn't have to move as fast, and so it exerts more air pressure on the underside of the wing than the air above exerts on top, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "lift". The pylons do, by lengthening the short under-wing air path, cause a non-zero reduction in the amount of lift the wing generates; but the plane is designed with this in mind and either has lift to spare or enough thrust to compensate, in some cases both.
Carriers do carry a significant amount of jet fuel for their air wing; but they also normally travel with fleet oilers, which can and do carry jet fuel, as well as other fuels.
Yes, physical knobs and dials are ergonomically better than okudagram-style interfaces. Anyone who has ever tried to type on a super-thin keyboard with not much vertical travel to the keys can tell you all about that.
I don't happen to know if the Su-57 is any good or not, but it hardly matters tbpf, because the Russian economy can't support adequate numbers of them. The Chinese aircraft have potential but need better engines that are _supposed_ to be available Real Soon Now, but jet engine development is not as easy as it sounds, so we won't really know how long that will take until it happens. (The first batch of J-20s have had one engine upgrade already, but it wasn't what's needed.) It's theoretically imminent, i.e., working prototype good engines for these aircraft potentially could appear at any time, but the program could also face arbitrarily many delays and cost overruns. This sort of development is inherently unpredictable, even (perhaps especially) for the people working on the project. As things stand right now, China doesn't have anything that can go toe-to-toe with the F-35, let alone the F-22. And Russia will never have *enough* Su-57s to make up the fighter wing of a global power's air force. Of course, the F-18 can't go toe-to-toe with the F-35 or F-22 either. But the US military isn't expecting it to do so.
F/A means fighter/ attack. The F-111 was a Navy product the didnt work to well for them. It has be used as a bomber in lybia. A radar jammer in iraq E/F111. Terrain following radar and fast as all hell. The is a video on RUclips if you look up air war in iraq. Great stuff. Oh the personin the back of the FA 18 takes care of the search and track and helps employ the weapons.
the hornets are divided into two distinct forms The legacy hornet Which is the A/B/C/D variants and the Super hornet which is the E/F sometimes also called the rhino because of a protrusion on the underside of the jet that is unique to the Super hornet. Two seats allows the WSO who sits behind the pilot to keep constant tabs on his screens for battle space awareness and control the ground strike weapons and the targeting pod while the pilot fly's the plane and can worry about air targets. The plane with the dome on it is a E-2 Hawkeye the dome visible is a 360 degree sweep radar to control aircraft and alert them of incoming threats and electronic warfare. The block 3 touch screen is built for future upgrade and integration ability to add new apps. You have to do a video on the electronic warfare version of the hornet the EA-18G Growler which can jam radar.
They need to make a ride at an amusement park that mimics the G forces experienced by the pilot on take off using the steam catapult/electric catapult.
From what I understand the G's are crazy!!
Prototypes. F-111 was a bomber and didn't follow the same numbering sequence.
2nd seat is for training, EWo usually
This to me has been my fav fighter aircraft for quite some time. Those shoulder mounted tanks would've been awesome.
Flying pick up truck….can do anything you ask or need!
If I may suggest another channel worth viewing for carrier operations is called Growler Jams. He's a current naval aviator and posts on board vids
If you hear the gun, You were not the target
Sometimes it's nice to have a co-pilot for one to focus on flying/SA and the other to handle radar/weapons
The F-21 Tigershark was an upgraded version single- engine of an old F-5 Tiger II fighter used in Vietnam. With uograded engine and avionics.
F-20, ya mean
@@thecrapinmytoilet6892 Your right, the F-21 was the Foward Sweet Wong version of the F-20 Test versionbut never went into full production
@@RobertL.JonesJr-hz8vl thought the F-21 was the proposed version of the F-16 for India’s Air-Force?
The F-20 was the F-5 Tiger II with the upgraded engine and avionics.
The original F-21 were thirty-three Israeli IFI Kfir fighters that were leased to Top Gun in the 1980's.
The newer F-21 (the F-16 derivative) was a promotional stunt from Lockheed Martin a few years back but was never an official designation.
The forward swept wings you're thinking of is the X-29.
So the 2 seat versions are used for 2 things training and Electronic warfare in a dedicated version called the Growler. And with there full load out i would not call it flying as there just using there 2 giant turbines to beat the air into submission. And there are around 75 fighters on board a carrier mostly Super hornets but they are starting to receive f-35's
An aircraft carrier will have like 40 f18s a few AWACS, jamming planes like the growler and other accompanying aircraft. Not just a full ship of 70 fighters
I’d love to see your thought on the tornados there were a few variants before the typhoon was the raf intercepter/ fighter
The number process is confusing. I agree. I wonder the same thing.
PS do a video about The Royal Marine Commandos
Extra seat is for the weapons co-pilot
Non-systematic aircraft designations
Since the 1962 system was introduced there have been several instances of non-systematic aircraft designations and skipping of design numbers.
Non-systematic or aberrant designations
The most common changes are to use a number from another series, or some other choice, rather than the next available number (117, 767, 71). Another is to change the order of the letters or use new acronym based letters (e.g. SR) rather than existing ones. Non-systematic designations are both official and correct, since the DOD has final authority to approve such designations.
A-29
Skipped fifteen designation numbers rather than using the next available number in the A series.
A-37 Dragonfly
Used the design number from its parent aircraft, the T-37 Tweet, rather than the next available number in the A series.
EA-37B
Renamed from EC-37B to better reflect the aircraft's capabilities, the new designation conflicts with the A-37 Dragonfly.
F/A-18 Hornet, also the transient F/A-16 and F/A-22.
Originally, the Navy planned to have two variants of the Hornet: the F-18 fighter and A-18 light attack aircraft. During development, "F/A-18" was used as a shorthand to refer to both variants. When the Navy decided to develop a single aircraft able to perform both missions, the "F/A" appellation stuck despite the designation system not allowing for slashes or other characters. AF-18 would be conformant. Similar issues existed with the naming of the F-22, though the naming of an attack variant was mooted by designation of the FB-22 (which, more appropriately, should have been designated BF-22).
F-15EX Eagle II
Uses non-standard EX series letters rather than the next available standard series letter (F-15F or F-15L).
F-35 Lightning II
Used the design number from its X plane designation (X-35) rather than the next available F series number.
FB-111 Aardvark
Should have been designated BF-111 as a fighter modified for bombing capabilities. Also should have used the next available number in the bomber sequence but 111 was retained for commonality with the F-111 from the pre-1962 system.
F-117 Nighthawk
Designated as part of series continuing from the pre-1962 system and latterly used to identify foreign aircraft acquired by the government, e.g., YF-113 was a MiG-23. Additionally, the basic mission designation as fighter implies air-to-air capabilities though the F-117 does not possess any. There have been conjecture and anecdotal reports concerning purported air-to-air capabilities targeted toward destroying Soviet AWACS craft.
KC-767
Skipped hundreds of C-series numbers to use Boeing's model number. Has conformant basic mission and modified mission letters. Only used for aircraft sold to foreign air forces. The U.S. Air Force ordered the Boeing 767-based tanker KC-46.
OA-1K
Designated as an implied further development of the long-retired and unrelated A-1 Skyraider, of which the A-1J was the last production variant, rather than using the next available number in the A series.
RC-7B
Designation conflicted with unrelated C-7 Caribou (later redesignated EO-5C in August 2004).
SR-71
The SR-71 designator is a continuation of the pre-1962 bomber series, which ended with the XB-70 Valkyrie. During the later period of its testing, the B-70 was proposed for the Reconnaissance/Strike role, with an RS-70 designation. The USAF decided instead to pursue the Lockheed A-12 which was dubbed RS-71 (Reconnaissance/Surveillance; unrelated to the S mission designation for anti-submarine warfare). Then-USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) moniker and wanted the reconnaissance aircraft to be named SR-71. Before the Blackbird was to be announced by President Johnson on 29 February 1964, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the aircraft's designation.
TR-1
A variant of the U-2; uses its own modified mission letter (T for Tactical) with basic mission letter (R for Reconnaissance). The U-2 was initially designated as "utility" to obfuscate its reconnaissance capabilities. Following shootdowns of the aircraft, this subterfuge was pointless. The TR-1, first flown in 1981, was later re-designated U-2R in 1991 after the end of the Cold War for uniformity.
B = bomber f = fighter sr= strategic recognises
B21 bomber
F35 fighter
Sr 71 blackbird
2 seater fighters one for pilot one for weaponry
Time for a throwback. You should check out the Me-262 and Me-163. When these came out it was like trying to fight off aliens for the allies
15:35 no shadow
Way back in the 1960s it was decided that US Military aircraft were to be numbered consecutively according to their mission code. For example the X-35 should have become the F-24 once it was accepted for service, since that was the next available designation number for fighter craft, instead it became the F-35.
Most planes follow the designation system but sometimes you get outliers like the F-117, SR-71 and KC-767. Usually a designer's reason for not using the next designation number is tied to the plane itself, like if it's based off a civilian aircraft or something like that. You can find out more if you look up the 'Tri-Service aircraft Designation System'
I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question Luke with something the Fat Electrician said that you cracked up about. You're saying that the numbering system doesn't make sense to you and that's right because this is the US we're talking about, where we don't make cents; we make dollars. Stop questioning the gaps of numbers and just know it makes dollars to the sterling.
If I had to guess as a layperson, the numbering system is jumps in generation/expectation/purpose. The F-111 Ardvaark was a counter to Soviet potential aggression and was built in response to respond to something the Soviets may or may not have had. The F-4 Phantom II was America's initial high speed ground attack interceptor and it was alright. It flew and could blow stuff up. The F-5 was a bit more maneuverable. F's 1-3, 6-13, 17, 19-21, and 23-34 have all been either smaller scale production fighters, only been designations for old Grumman prop fighters from WWII, or were failed prototypes. Like there's no US F-7. There's a Chinese F7 and the US Grumman F7F, but no US F-7. So the one's you know are the successful ones. The ones that won the bidding war and actually proved some grit in prototype. The F-1xx series seemed to have been the planes headed by the North American Aviation company. They had the F-101 Voodoo, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief....so they had a few, but they all seem to have been NAA's products/projects with the F-111 Ardvaark being the odd one out.
Can you imagine the headache these new aircraft have with digital interfaces now? I'm only speaking from my own experience in non military work dealing with tech, but could you imagine being in the heat of battle, you're getting a lock on an enemy, you pull the trigger and then you get window popping up saying, "System Restart Required. System will restart in 10 minutes unless you want to reschedule for a later time." Or they can't get their flairs to fire and the only help they can get is, "Have you tried turning it off then turning it back on again?" Like holy hannah! I get mad at computers for that kind of dumb s*it. I can't imagine when you're screaming in the air at mach 1.3 with someone chasing you and your entire system blue screens. Like just gouge out my retinas now.
The munitions hung under the wing are not impeding the air flow to the wings lifting surface, the photo (at time stamp 05:58) shows the flaps in the down position giving the appearance there is zero air flow.
That didn’t include the EA-18G Growler
I wouldn't due the enemy much good to get hold of one of these it takes an entire crew to maintain and arm these planes. The pilot gets all the credit but the ground crew makes it all happen.
All the public videos of UFOs are from Super Hornets. 😜
My wife was a F18 mechanic in the Marine Corps. She loves the airframe but has said that the pilots couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with their cannons
I knew you had it in you brother
the plane with the disc is the awacs plane
The second seat is the RIO (radar intercept officer). The primary purpose of the RIO is to operate and manage the aircraft's radar and weapon systems, while also providing situational awareness and tactical coordination. F/A-18 D and F Hornets had RIO's. Super Hornets do not have a RIO
It's radar intercept officer if I am not mistaken
Sorry. You're correct. I didn't notice the autocorrect.
@OlSmokyDaBear no need to say sorry. I also have heard them called "wizzo" WSO. That I am guessing means weapons system officer.
That's right. You're actually probably right on that. I believe after reading a bit the second seat on the 18 is called a WSO. On the F-4 and F-14 it was called a RIO.
@OlSmokyDaBear thanks for the reply. I am trying to get them right but sometimes leaving a comment on here somebody will start shit just to be an idiot. Take care have a great day
Capabilities. The take offs…..it’s the “O” factor 😊
I love the Hornet. I've spent the last 2 years learning the ins and outs of the F/A-18 in DCS World flight sim. It's such a capable jet, with so many amazing weapon systems to master.
ruclips.net/video/NCafr9EDkHU/видео.htmlsi=XfzSVQNEVT76RTJT
yeah...i read you, Lysdexia is a problem
Is it not the same aircraft they used in the latest Top Gun movie.
Awesome 😊
B-1 was canceled then brought back as B-1B. The aircraft builders all start as X until taken from there X-22 until as always all craft VMF US MAarine air wing. Where VAW
The F-18 is not a Air superiority Figther.
B- 21 is 21 because first new bomber of the the 21st century. Not because of anything to do with the B 2 bomber
That's my baby :')
F 111 might have been a similar trick as f 117 wehere actualy it s realy a bomber.just gets f designation. To sound cooler to pilots.
Don't let the NAVY and the AF confuse you regarding numbering
Should check out a Video on the F-14 Tomcat amazing fighter/interceptor of its time
Don't know if anyone addressed this yet, but when he mentioned how much fuel the Aircraft Carrier must have to move all of the jets and such it carriers...if I'm not mistaken, U.S. aircraft carriers haven't been diesel in a long time. They run on turbine engines that are powered by small nuclear reactors on the ships. That way, they can stay out at sea for as long as needed. They only need food and other suplies. I also believe they have their own water filtration systems.
There are prototypes that never go into production as far as the numbers go. Now the F-111... no clue. That is some military jujitsu I dunno.
SECOND SEAT I BELIEVE IS THE WEAPONS OFFICER.
Only fluffs fly the 18. They love their floating islands of men