David Hingtgen Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) A few pics here: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.sear...inct_entry=true Link to best picture in good but not huge size: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/717630/M/ Black US insignia and black intake triangle--nice touch. Though yellow would be even better. (Hey, VFA-105 often does bright green intake and national insignia) Apparently you can't paint the IFF box on the nose, and the rudder edges are still grey. Edited November 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vf1_soulja Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Cool pics. I used to live a hop, skip and a jump away from Oceana. Hmm... changed to the super hornet, eh? . Those jets are loud, but after living close to the NAS for close to 13 years you get used to it. I Love Jet Noise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Cool pics. I used to live a hop, skip and a jump away from Oceana. Hmm... changed to the super hornet, eh? . Those jets are loud, but after living close to the NAS for close to 13 years you get used to it. I Love Jet Noise! aviators ear i bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 So how many high-vis birds will they have or the CAG bird will be in low-vis ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyde01 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) aww man!! VFA-103!? Super Hornet!? This is giving me culture shock!! Edited November 24, 2004 by cyde01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yeah, and it's now the VFA-143 Pukin' Dogs. And they're getting E models instead of F. (They swapped with VF(A)-211, who'll be getting F's instead of E's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yup, it's not horrible, but it doesn't look quite right either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 No sir, I don't like it. That super bug is trying too hard to be something it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCOLMRNE Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 the F-14 full viz looks way better, VF-143 should of sticked with the F version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Pinche Haro! Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 my heart sank when i saw the f/a-18's with the jolly rogers paint job it just doesn't look right...that paint job lookst the best on the f-14...but what can we do? stupid politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Looks like a F-18 cosplaying as a F-14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronocidal Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Crap.. yeah, just doesn't look right. Now.. my main question.. how long before Iran dumps their F-14s, and one ends up on the airshow circuit in the original VF-84 scheme from the 70s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Dont look right. nice but not wonderful. The F-4B did the Jolly Rogers more justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaijin Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Oh well...it's not bad. Tomcat still looked better but, hey what ya gonna do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I notice the design of the skull and cross bones changed with every subsequent aircraft till the F-14. F-4B had a waving black flag, F-4J and N had fully painted black tails. And yeah i tend to agree that the Shortnet scheme is OK but not perfect especially the out of place tail codes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'm surprised they went with the tail codes on the outisde of the tail instead of the stylized AA on the inside like they had with the F-14. Then they could have made the skull bigger instead of the little one they have tucked into the lower front corner. I also would have moved the vagabond stripe fruther up the nose so that it bisected the US roundel like on the F-14, Super Hornets just look good with the stripe further up (see the Growler hornet demo bird). The intake and ejection seat warnings in black are a nice touch. All-in all not bad, it could definetly look better but it's definetly not bad. It should look even better with some ordinacne hanging off the wings and an all black centerline tank with its own vagabond stripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Border Red Devil Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 my heart sank when i saw the f/a-18's with the jolly rogers paint job it just doesn't look right...that paint job lookst the best on the f-14...but what can we do? stupid politics. Yea...has nothing to with the fact that the F-14 is outdated compared to the F/A-18 or the fact that the geopolitical makeup of the world is different from what it was 20 years ago. Having a fleet organized as it was in the '80s is outdated thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikuro Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Now k'mon, they're being "Modern" now I think the change is just fine, I got no complaints, but it does ruin something of a stereo type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 my heart sank when i saw the f/a-18's with the jolly rogers paint job it just doesn't look right...that paint job lookst the best on the f-14...but what can we do? stupid politics. Yea...has nothing to with the fact that the F-14 is outdated compared to the F/A-18 or the fact that the geopolitical makeup of the world is different from what it was 20 years ago. Having a fleet organized as it was in the '80s is outdated thinking. Our whole premise is all about a inferior plane replacing a superior plane. The F-14 was better than the F-4 in every which way. THe F/A-18F? good but not the IDEAL, replacement. Now if it was something ideal and BETTER in every which way, then we wouildn't be bitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBebop Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Sniff, sniff! I can't believe the Tomcat is leaving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That NOS Guy Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 In a word: Blasphemy. I think the paint looks good, just not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 The Jolly Roger in the posted links, I take it that's the CO's bird? Will the other birds from the squadron have a similiar scheme, or will the rest be Lo-Vis? I recall seeing the Lo-Vis of some Super-F's for them, and they looked awful as hell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 (edited) Actually, that's the "Show Bird". Generally, that only happens when the modex and the squadron number match. That doesn't happen very often. See, this is plane #103 of squadron 103. It is neither the CAG, CO, nor XO plane. VFA-102 does this for plane #102 (which is normally the XO plane but has no special markings). Most squadrons cannot do this, especially any squadron that's only 1 or 2 digits. VF-103 couldn't do it until the late 90's, since they were assigned "2xx" modex numbers up til then. I think you usually see the CO plane's "high vis" sacrificed when this occurs, since I think you can only have 2 high-vis planes per squadron. Thus the CAG plane and the "number matches the squadron" Showbird, rather than the CAG and CO planes. So VFA-103 will probably have #100 and #103 in high-vis, rather than 100 and 101. :edit: Just learned that the CO might get the "number-matching" plane instead of the "01" plane, so that he gets a high-vis plane. Thus the CAG and CO planes are 00 and 03 instead of 00 and 01 like normal. Edited November 25, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Why do they have that rule re: the modex and squadron number? Don't know if this link has been posted before, but here is a nice history of the Jolly Rogers livery in USN squadrons. http://www.almansur.com/jollyrogers/jollyrogers.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Modex & Squadron Numbers? I'm not certain, but I believe it's another thing to make quick ID'ing on the flightdeck much easier. Carrier flightdecks are cramped, dangerous, and there's lots of fast, moving parts. Not to mention there's a s**tload of USN/USMC squadrons that use variations of the Hornet. So, after you've been on the flightdeck a while, you can tell that that 512 belongs to this squadron, but 212 belongs to yours. That's the way I think of it out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearyaks Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 my heart sank when i saw the f/a-18's with the jolly rogers paint job it just doesn't look right...that paint job lookst the best on the f-14...but what can we do? stupid politics. Yea...has nothing to with the fact that the F-14 is outdated compared to the F/A-18 or the fact that the geopolitical makeup of the world is different from what it was 20 years ago. Having a fleet organized as it was in the '80s is outdated thinking. Our whole premise is all about a inferior plane replacing a superior plane. The F-14 was better than the F-4 in every which way. THe F/A-18F? good but not the IDEAL, replacement. Now if it was something ideal and BETTER in every which way, then we wouildn't be bitching. I'm not a huge aviation buff but I remember hearing somewhere that the Tomcats have a very large amount of upkeep time spent on them... basically the flight hours they log before retrofitting is much much less than that of the Hornets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 my heart sank when i saw the f/a-18's with the jolly rogers paint job it just doesn't look right...that paint job lookst the best on the f-14...but what can we do? stupid politics. Yea...has nothing to with the fact that the F-14 is outdated compared to the F/A-18 or the fact that the geopolitical makeup of the world is different from what it was 20 years ago. Having a fleet organized as it was in the '80s is outdated thinking. Our whole premise is all about a inferior plane replacing a superior plane. The F-14 was better than the F-4 in every which way. THe F/A-18F? good but not the IDEAL, replacement. Now if it was something ideal and BETTER in every which way, then we wouildn't be bitching. I'm not a huge aviation buff but I remember hearing somewhere that the Tomcats have a very large amount of upkeep time spent on them... basically the flight hours they log before retrofitting is much much less than that of the Hornets. THat's true but see when I think of airplanes for the military I think about capability. Capability counts the most and a succeeding plane SHOULD be more capable in EVERY role that the exiting plane can do. Regardless of maintanibility and so forth., I mean don't get me wrong, if we had a big, stealthy, super manueverable, long range naval multiroler that had the punch of the F-14, and rangee and bombload of the A-6, I really wouldn't be complaioning. And I don't hate the super hornet, I just don't think it should be replacing tomcats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 (Repeating what's been said already in a dozen threads...) Yes, but "a big, stealthy, super manueverable, long range naval multiroler that had the punch of the F-14, and range and bombload of the A-6" simply wasn't on the menu. So the choice was between a big interceptor that takes a lot of manpower/time/money to maintain, and a big multi-roler with emphasis on surface attack, that is extremely easy to maintain. In the post-Cold War defense environment, the big interceptor role isn't needed, so the F-14's ability in that area is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 (edited) Navalised YF-23 kinda sounds like that... (If you configured the front and rear missile bays like a B-1B---have a movable bulkhead---then you could easily fit some Phoenixes inside by removing the bulkhead---the YF-23 has a deep, long bay as opposed to the -22's wide, shallow bay) Edited November 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyde01 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 and a big multi-roler with emphasis on surface attack, that is extremely easy to maintain. a big multi-roler that is easy to maintain? More like medium sized plane that's trying and failing to be a multiroler!! The Tomcat wasn't even designed for surface attack, but from what I heard does a much better job of surface attack than the shornet. I know you've probably heard this before, but I'm still gonna say it. In the end, the hornet was just a plane designed to compete with the YF-16 for the airforce's lightweight fighter role. The politicians are just kind of forcing it into a strike fighter role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 (edited) Also, the Hornet has always been primarily (almost purely) for attack. Air-to-air for a Hornet is a rare event. It's an attacker that can fight, not a fighter than can also bomb. Sure, the YF-17 was designed for the same role as the F-16, but by the time the F/A-18 came around, it was supposed to carry bombs 90% of the time. Kind of ironic, as the F-16 has been going more towards attack all the time as well, Hornet just "got there first". And the F-15E, and F-14D... Everything plane's going more towards attack, if you think about it. Edited November 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Okay, guys. Yes, clyde01, I have heard it before. Just go to the airplane vs. thread and you can find me, Shin, David, and others going back and forth about it. So I'm not going to rehash the whole argument except to point out that the F-16 vs. Cobra issue is ancient history. F-14 vs. Super Hornet is a completely different issue even if you think that the F-14 got a raw deal. David's right, of course: surface attack is where it's at these days, and for the foreseeable future. So the crucial metric in the decision to go with the Super Hornet was the total surface attack ability of a fleet equipped with F-18E/F's vs. one that's equipped with F-14's. It doesn't matter if one F-14 can outperform one F-18E/F in a strike (less likely in any case now that the Hornets are getting ATFLIR); the question is, given X dollars to spend over the next Y years, how can the Navy deliver the most HE on target when called upon to do so? If the Super Hornet's superior maintainability means we can have more of them on hand, and if they can be turned around faster during a bombing campaign, then the Super Hornet is probably the right answer to that question. (And yes, probably the right answer if you put a navalized YF-23 onto the menu as well.) Anyway, this is far afield of the topic of this thread. David, did you miss my earlier question about why you can only have a "show bird" when the modex and squadron numbers match? Either warmaker misunderstood my question or I don't understand his answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 To boil ewilen's point down further: Planes in the shop can't bomb targets and they can't defend the fleet. You may be able to get better performance with a harder to maintain aircraft, but all that performance doesn't do you squat while your plane is in overhaul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 Try to explain as best I know: A showbird is basically any plane that is high-vis. However, 99% of the time, they are the CAG and CO, and are called the CAG-bird and CO-bird usually, even though they are "showbirds". But, when the squadron and modex can match, they usually paint that one up in high-vis instead of the CO's plane. Then, that plane is referred to as the "showbird", since it has no other name, not being the CAG's, etc. VFA-105 is currently assigned 4xx, but will transition to Super Hornets in a year or two and will probably get a 1xx or 2xx, so they might get a showbird---105 is especially colorful as sqaudrons go, you can bet they'll put as much color on every plane as possible. My fave squadron, VF-111, had "2xx" modex for DECADES, and never had a plane #111. All in all: every squadron can have 2 high-vis planes. Normally CAG and CO, CO normally not as colorful as CAG. But when the modex and squadron numbers match, that plane usually is assigned instead of the CO plane for high-vis. Or that plane might be used for the CO, with "01" being an "ordinary" plane in the squadron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 Thanks, David. That's even clearer with regard to what the "rule" is, but I still don't understand why they have the rule. Is it just that it looks cool to have a big number on the plane that happens to be the same as the squadron's? Hmm...while looking at various VFA colors, I came across this http://user.chollian.net/~xtlove/sims_reso..._VF103_shot.jpg Hard to tell, but this might be a little better than the current VFA-103 colors. Anyone have Janes F/A-18 and care to take a few more shots with the skin? (The main page where you can get the skins is here; click on the FA-18E skins link at the left. There's also a VFA-111 skin there; personally, I'd like to see a bigger shark mouth. At least as big as this Phantom II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.