This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
seats, the ATA should be scaled down to occupy as little deck space as possible. Methods employed in body-blending and stealth technology would help achieve a minimal cross-section radar return for future aircraft. The ATA must, however, be designed to carry enough internal fuel and external ordnance to inflict the desired damage to a target at the required range.
- Long-range strike capability without compromising performance required to survive in a multithreat environment: Designs that upgrade existing airframes incapable of attaining supersonic egress speeds, such as the modified Intruder, should be considered as merely temporary stopgap measures, effective only in the absence of high-speed adversary aircraft.
- All-weather, low-altitude night strike capability: Systems that employ terrain-following features through an autopilot system, in conjunction with such a system as the Global Positioning System, would provide the ATA with the ability to perform weapons release even under adverse conditions.
- Night vision devices and improved FLIR: The use of night-vision goggles in tactical jet aircraft is a technology now available. Under the proper atmospheric environment, a low-altitude night attack would replicate daylij? conditions. Moreover, the development of a refined 'V1 field-of-view heads-up-display — which could Prese fixed-navigation FLIR imagery to the pilot in a one-to-03 format of the real world—would further enhance mg strike tactics.
- Improved radar systems: Radars that electronically sc 360° around an aircraft as opposed to the current 65- scans on either side of the nose are technological refl ments that may soon be attainable. In addition, as c°^g puters with expanded memory and faster processing used, a radar may eventually simultaneously scan in
an air-to-air and air-to-ground mode to facilitate targe'1 of both hostile aircraft and land targets. y
- Voice-actuated weapon systems: Such systems, m ^
currently under investigation, would undoubtedly sPe many functions that are presently performed by actuatt g series of switches. In combination with a voice sys' ’ displays may someday be printed on the visor of a PJ1 helmet, ultimately leading to a “look-talk-shoot quence. This arrangement could eliminate numerous c pit switches. , ^
The Hornet has had its share of critics. Much °
Commander Raymond E. Thomas, U. S. Navy, spent the last year organizing a new Navy tactical combat squadron, VFA- 137, “The Kestrels,” at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Florida. The new squadron, with Commander Thomas as the commanding officer (CO), is built primarily around the F/A-18 Hornet. Commander Thomas, who has racked up more than 4,000 flight hours—3,400 in the A-7 Corsair—already has more than 100 hours of flight time in the Hornet.
He warms to the task of describing the Hornet: “It’s only 10% heavier than the A-7, but it puts out more than double the thrust. Its turning capability is remarkable. It’s probably the best turning airplane in the world and one of the best weapon systems yet developed.” Praise for the Hornet is universal among the pilots of VFA-137, and the CO rates the airplane equal to or better than the F-15 Eagle or the F-14 Tomcat in the
air-to-air arena, and better than the Corsair in the air-to-ground mission.
Commander Thomas describes an air combat maneuvering engagement he and his wingman had recently flown: “We went out as a strike escort for nine A-7s, five Navy and four from the Michigan Air National Guard. Their mission was to head out over the water up to Georgia, where they were to drop some inert bombs on the range. The scenario called for two Marine F-4s and one A-4 to be out there to jump the strike group. We did a MiG-sweep before the strike group came through and found them 60 miles away, locked them up, ran an intercept on them, came up from behind, and shot all three of them before they even had a chance to turn on us. That’s the radar doing most of that.”
The heads-up display tapes of that mission show that Commander Thomas and his wing- man had a lock on the Marines long before they were even aware of F/A-18s’ presence- They disposed of the Skyha • before the Phantoms were c°t- zant of the threat’s presence-^ Once the Phantoms realize(o situation, the F-4 pilots wen afterburners. So did the Ho
and in that configuration t e heads-up display readout co firmed a closing rate of • [S knots. Not only did the Ho rapidly overtake the Phanto ^ but they had the quick loc j and a perfect shot. Splash ^ The original concept tha , mately led to the Hornet for two separate airplanes .
tailored for the fighter r° e the other for the strike ro e- However, the designers en^ up with one airplane that ^ perform both roles and do^ > well without any change o equipment other than loa 1 ^ the appropriate weapons- ^ means that all Hornet Vx. ^th required to be proficient 1an
warfare areas and necesst extra training load on the
80
Proceedings
/Oct°
bC 1
of aerial c u vwuuiiuumvo uu,v i,^viuv ivj t° Q * combat. Since most aircrews have been exposed
in f°ne cockph arrangement, this is understandable Perform aCt’ ma^ highly desirable for optimum combat
°nS-Seat
senti Versus two-seat debate has been fueled by strong ents different communities have for specific styles
and.
tate thea,?Ce' Ultimately, such parochial views could dic- sufr ■ des'§n and acquisition of future aircraft without batin'61!1 reSar(l l°r technological considerations and op-
As d recluirements.
t°niorr GS^nS are ProPosecl l°r the ATA that will fly from sess.. s carriers, decision makers must carefully as- thefleg6 SCat'nS configuration best suited to the needs of airCrewto counter future surface and airborne threats. The enemvCOmPlement with the capability of identifying an $ubseQ ^ Wa^ °f active or passive electronic means and edly jA launching long-range weapons will undoubt- finai tae upper hand in future combat scenarios. In the tivenessa ysis> however, both mission plurality and effec- c°nsidS combat performance should be the principal Crew grat'0ns in determining the most appropriate air- depl°ye7Plement- The fact remains that the forwarder a Carr'er wiH rarely have numerical superiority Potential foe in terms of combat-capable aircraft.
For this reason, the limited number of aircraft deployed on board the carrier must represent the best possible combination in terms of dependability, flexibility, and combat effectiveness. Whether the ATA is performing a long-range strike in adverse weather or defending the battle group against a regimental raid of hostile aircraft, expectations should be no lower than weapons on target with zero losses to enemy defenses. Tomorrow’s fleet can afford nothing less.
'RAdm L. A. Edney, “F/A-18; Adding Versatility and Punch to Battle Group Options,” Wings of Gold, Winter 1984, p. 22.
2Ibid.
3VAdm E. H. Martin, “Naval Aircraft Today," Naval Aviation News, Jan.-Feb., 1986, p. 9.
Lieutenant Trotter graduated from the University of Colorado in 1977. He was designated a naval aviator in September 1978. With more than 2,400 flight hours and 570 carrier landings, he has flown more than 1,000 hours in both the Tomcat and the Homet. Assigned to VFA-113 at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, Lieutenant Trotter participated in the Navy’s first extended deployment of the Homet on board the Constellation (CV-64) from February to August 1985.
By John Tegler
squadrons. “It’s not exactly twice as heavy because of the two roles,” according to Commander Thomas, “but about 1.5 times the normal training load that a straight fighter or strike squadron would have. So I would suppose that might be, from a management standpoint, the most challenging aspect of trying to put one of these squadrons to sea in a combat-ready status.”
It is partially correct to say that the Homet is a direct replacement for the Corsair. But the Homet does not do exactly the same thing as the Corsair. In the morning, the Homet might launch on a strike mission and, in the afternoon, configured with different weapons, it could go out in the air-to-air role. About
Commander Raymond Thomas, CO of VFA-137, on the F/A-18: “It’s probably the best turning airplane in the world. ... If you can’t have fun flying this airplane, something is very wrong.”
81
about the airplane every hop and I’m amazed by it every
tern for the Hornet, can ground proximity warning tern, which will be on t e 10 airplanes.” Command* •' Thomas includes a ‘‘fun air-
in his comparison of the craft. “If you can’t have is
flying this airplane, son ^ very wrong. You can do things that people have doing in the A-7 as well a- things that they’ve had doing in the Phantom an j up Tomcat, and it’s all wrafl* t in one airplane. I pre ^ the Hornet is going to best carrier airplane tha ever had
ve
I Octo'
70-80% of what the Hornet does will supplant the Corsair in the strike role. The remaining 20-30% will see the Hornet in the air-to-air role. Other than in the case of the small-deck carriers like the Coral Sea (CV-43) and the Midway (CV-41), the Hornet is an airframe-for- airframe replacement for the Corsair.
Commander Thomas elaborates on the differences between the Hornet and the Corsair: “Basically, this airplane is too good to be true. Like everybody else, I heard all the horror stories about the problems that the Navy was having with the Hornet during its gestation period. As a matter of fact, I was inclined to look at the airplane with a very jaundiced eye. People were asking whether the airplane was any good and why we weren’t buying a two-seat strike/ fighter and so forth. However, in the final analysis, the Hornet has turned out to be a remarkable airplane. It’s hard to be specific about what’s good about it because I can pick any area in the airplane and tell you things about it that are just outstanding. The engines are the most reliable I’ve ever been associated with. You can do anything you want with them. The flight control system is marvelous. You can fly the airplane very comfortably at speeds that would effectively put you into a departure in the A-7.”
He continues: “I’ve even got a little pitch that I give to some of my old cronies in the A-7 community. This pitch talks about the things that are better in the F/A-18 as opposed to the A-7 and vice versa. In summary, the F/A-18 is just a great strike airplane. There is a fuel- consumption problem, however, which you don’t have to be concerned with in the A-7 because of its fan engine. Thus, you have to fly this airplane differently, but look what you get in return for that one small penalty. With the A-7, you’re looking at an airplane that has about a .5 thrust-to-weight ratio. With the F/A-18, you’re looking at an airplane that has a 1.1 thrust-to- weight ratio at half fuel. The wing loading is comparable to a MiG-17, so it’s an eye-watering airplane in terms of turning. I think probably the most significant thing in the airplane in terms of its lethal ability in combat is the APG-65 radar, and that’s both on the strike side and the air-to-air side. You have the ability with the Hornet, with its great INS [inertial navigation system], to hang bombs on it, drive it into the target at high speed, all the while looking at the air-to-air radar to watch for interceptors. You are also carrying a HARM [high speed antiradiation missile] missile in case a SAM [surface-to-air missile] site comes up and air-to-air missiles in case you have to engage those interceptors. It’s got it all. It’s really a marvelous airplane!”
The Hornet has excellent runway performance. It takes off in less than half the distance of the Corsair and lands in one-third the distance. It is much more reliable than the Corsair, and easy to operate. It has an auxiliary power unit, so you can simply walk out to the airplane, flip a switch, and start the engines. Six minutes later, you’re ready to taxi out.
“When we come back from a hop,” says the CO, “we have a little panel on the airplane that tells the maintenance guys when they need to put oil in the engines or when they need to put hydraulics in. You don’t have to pull dipsticks, you just have these little codes that print out. They even tell you when one of the avionics components is going bad. The flexibility of the airplane is remarkable. You can change missions simply by changing the weapons. I can change the airplane from the strike role to the air-to-air role simply by flipping a switch on the stick. I learn something
time
I fly it. Again, the radar is standing. Even though we on have one guy in the airplane^ the radar is so easy to use an so effective that it makes us J as competent as the two-man crew in the Tomcat.
“The pilot’s ability in the Hornet is the limiting factor-^ The cockpit design is so g°° that it makes you wonder w we couldn’t have done this years ago—since its design mainly a thought process an ^ not technology. The airp*3” ^ very definitely well-suited single pilot concept and is a j very comfortable airplane a the ship. The Hornet also lot of system redundancy 1e the A-7 doesn’t have, thus are few situations where any thing is a big problem beca of all those backups. ,
“Other than the range an endurance problem with t ^ Hornet, as opposed to the the only other problem is ^ the radar altimeter, whic ^ jn quite as good as the one u e the A-7. It’s an avionics c that they are already wor * on. They’re within six mo ^ of coming out with a bet
fam fnr tKp HnrtlPf.
we
Mr. Tegler has written over 200*^. H>» cles and four books on aviatio /fflW ,e most recent book is Gentleme . fS of Race—the history of the first 20 ^ ReIK>. National Championship Air Kac Nevada.
Proceedings
her1