Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

As the A-6 Intruder was retired in the 1990s, its role was filled by the F/A-18.

Under "Combat_operations" the article states "As the A-6 Intruder was retired in the 1990s, its role was filled by the F/A-18." I personally consider that this needs a citation, as (as far as I'm aware) the F-14 took a great part of the A-6 role. But I don't consider myself qualified to add that tag there. Diego bf109 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don’t really have a formal source but I have heard that the intention behind giving the F-14 the capability to mount the LANTIRN pod and use PGMs in the 1990s was to fill the medium attack role after the A-6 was retired. Legacy F/A-18 models have considerably shorter range and smaller payload, so they’re more of a light attack replacement that also has good air-to-air capability 2600:4040:5F52:1600:CC9A:D239:7B0E:132B (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes this needs reference but that statement does not exclude other aircraft that filled the A-6's role. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Top Gun Maverick?

This plane was extensively featured in the blockbuster, so shouldn't it be mentioned here? See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-26/tom-cruise-s-fighter-jet-rides-paid-us-navy-up-to-11-374-hourly BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant for this war-machine. Beside that, it is already mentioned at Aircraft in fiction#F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Banner talk 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

And since we have a separate article for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, we wouldn't be mentioning it in this article anyway. BilCat (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for the response. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why does it say "formerly operated by the Blue Angels squadron"?

As recently as Sunday, September 25, 2022, I've witnessed the Blue Angels flying F18s at MCAS Miramar. 76.171.170.221 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Because they dont fly them anymore, they now fly Super Hornets which have a seperate article at Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Has the F/A-18 been retired by the USMC

I have heard and seen things saying that it has been retired, but some squadrons listed still have F/A-18 as their operator Memelephant (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Renaming F/A-18 to FA-18

Although F/A-18 is a very common designation, does there exist any sources that prove this designation to be somehow real?

I've found the official DoD designation sheet, and it states that the true name is FA-18, the previous was F-18 and F/A-18 is not mentioned. So is the renaming needed? RajatonRakkaus (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The F/A-18 designation is official per Navy pages even if it might be somewhat outside the official designation system. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this means that it's a legitimate designation. But:

1. Navy is a former operator of FA-18, so its designation has somehow lower significance.
2. Navy is not an executive agent of designations, so their ones are not that significant.
3. In 2020 a specific DoDD stated that “only approved MDS designators and popular names shall be used in referencing these aerospace vehicles in official documents and public statements”. The approved one is obviously the one mentioned in the DoD list.

RajatonRakkaus (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Former operator, huh? The U.S. Navy still operates F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (and EA-18G Growlers). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, true. Anyway, my 2nd and 3rd statements are still more crucial. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Irregardless, "F/A" is the common style, and thus is used per WP:COMMONNAME. We'd need some very strong WP policy reasons to go with the "official" style here over the common one. BilCat (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  The official Boeing page currently calls it "F/A-18 Super Hornet" [1]. So not sure what the problem is here. --McSly (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Corrections to official RCAF designations and names

CF-188 CF-188A: Single-seat fighter/attack version for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)/Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). Unofficially referred to as the CF-18A Hornet. CF-188B: Two-seat training and combat version for the CAF/RCAF. Unofficially referred to as the CF-18B Hornet.

==========

There is no such thing as a "CF-188A". The single-seater's official designation is CF-188 and the official name is CF-18A. For the two-seaters, the official designation is CF-188B and the official name is CF-18B. Both "Hornet" and "F-18" are widely used by RCAF personnel, but they are not official. After structural and avionics upgrades "M" was added to the names (i.e. CF-18AM and CF-18BM). I literally wrote the book on CAF designations, names, and serials ("The Aircraft of the Canadian Armed Forces") and I used primary sources at DND (official documents and numerous meetings with people) to ensure its accuracy.

Of interest is that DND prefers, but does not require, the use of the "D" for "Dual" suffix for two-seat trainer variants. Examples include the CF-104D and CF-116D. This was also the original plan for the two-seat CF-188s. I found a memo in the files from an officer suggesting that while he never expected to see it in his lifetime, if Canada ever upgraded to versions of the F/A-18C and D, we'd need the "D" suffix then and he proposed using "B", just like the U.S. was doing. His proposal was accepted and the change was made before any aircraft were delivered, so there were never any "CF-188D CF-18D" aircraft, even briefly. An exception had also been made many years earlier for the CF-101B and its dual-control variant, the CF-101F.

There was also a precedent for using what looks like a designation as the "popular name" (to use its correct title). The single-seat Canadian version of the F-5 Freedom Fighter was designated as CF-116 (not CF-116A) and its name was CF-5A. For the two-seaters, the designation was CF-116D and the name was CF-5D. When a CF-116 CF-5A was fitted with the interchangeable recce nose, they were listed as "CF-5A(R)" in such places as the scheduling board in Ops and in various logs and records, but this was never an official DND designation or name.

I think it would have made more sense to use CF-188A as the designation for the single-seaters and use CF-188 as the generic term for any and all examples instead of making CF-188 do double-duty, but they didn't ask me. :-) JeffRL (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Maximum speed

I think the maximum Mach speed number is wrong. I think the correct one is 1.6. Timppa68 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)