Jump to content

History of changes with each F/A-18 variant


CheckGear

Recommended Posts

If Mavericks couldn't hit the broadside of a barn then they wouldn't be produced for so many years, nor would they be in service today, given advancement, and the variety of PGM available today.

 

 

Mavericks are a combat proven missile system and got a reputation as lethal stand off tank buster.

 

 

That was either a big-time misread on your part or you took it way too seriously.

 

 

What I'm saying is that the Maverick and Walleye offered a different level of accuracy/precision than LGBs. I know they eventually made laser-Mavericks they made them even more accurate and precise, but again, this isn't what I was referring to, since the early Hornets didn't fire the L-Mavs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I follow:

 

- AN/AAS-38/A was a FLIR, nothing more;

- AN/ASQ-173 was a laser spot-tracker that could pick up laser signals, without emitting any of its own;

- Together, they still required a laser from a Forward Air Controller or another aircraft (such as a TRAM-equipped A-6E) to drop laser-guided munitions;

- AN/AA-38B was equipped with a laser-designator and tracker, allowing the Hornet to independently lase and attack targets without assistance from an FAC or another plane.

 

Does that sound right?

 

Yup it does :) .

 

However, there was also an intermediate AN/AAS-38A variant. It looks like this could also independently laser designate a target, but apparently still needed the ASQ-173 spot tracker - at least for an externally illuminated target.

 

I have attached an account for the different variants(not sure about the source).

 

In the January 13, 1993 strike, they utilized F-15E Strike Eagles and F-117A Nighthawks, which were capable of dropping "smart" bombs. Kitty Hawk also had TRAM-equipped A-6Es, so they had plenty of assets capable of dropping PGMs. The only reason I can gather the F-16s and F/A-18s didn't drop PGMs was because they couldn't. I wish I could find out for sure, though.

 

See second attachment - it looks like at least the F-18s did, but required those A-6s to designate the targets for them.

AAS-38.jpg.cc1ab612f309da214a95d985ef7aa0df.jpg

AAS-38_ops.jpg.152da4e8b375a2fafb228b0e728dc3c7.jpg

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup it does :) .

 

However, there was also an intermediate AN/AAS-38A variant. It looks like this could also independently laser designate a target, but apparently still needed the ASQ-173 spot tracker - at least for an externally illuminated target.

 

I have attached an account for the different variants(not sure about the source).

 

 

Three variants.

 

# in last column is weight in lb.

 

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=197215&stc=1&d=1541457390

 

PDF from forecastinternational archived reports.

 

 

 

Okay, this is all making a ton of sense now. I can now confidently conclude the AN/AAS-38 and AN/AAS-38A both required the AN/ASQ-173 laser spot tracker, but the AN/AAS-38B was a self-contained unit that permitted entirely independent employment of LGBs by the Hornet.

 

 

See second attachment - it looks like at least the F-18s did, but required those A-6s to designate the targets for them.

 

The attachments, while interesting, refer to strikes that took place in 1995 in Bosnia. Both "The Big 'A'" and "The Big Stick" had at least one squadron flying F/A-18C(N)s. The F/A-18s flying off Kitty Hawk in the January '93 strike on Iraq were the A-variant and were likely incapable of LGB employment and were said to have dropped only "dumb" bombs, despite carrying FLIR pods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this is all making a ton of sense now. I can now confidently conclude the AN/AAS-38 and AN/AAS-38A both required the AN/ASQ-173 laser spot tracker, but the AN/AAS-38B was a self-contained unit that permitted entirely independent employment of LGBs by the Hornet.

 

I don't think AN/AAS-38A needed AN/ASQ-173 to drop your own LGBs, as you don't need a laser spot tracker to track your own designation. The aircraft already knows the target coordinates through AN/AAS-38A alone. I think AN/ASQ-173 was only required if you wanted to find someone else's laser destination (such as from a wingman or FAC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this is all making a ton of sense now. I can now confidently conclude the AN/AAS-38 and AN/AAS-38A both required the AN/ASQ-173 laser spot tracker, but the AN/AAS-38B was a self-contained unit that permitted entirely independent employment of LGBs by the Hornet.

 

Don't think thats quite right - see Mbot's post :)

 

The attachments, while interesting, refer to strikes that took place in 1995 in Bosnia. Both "The Big 'A'" and "The Big Stick" had at least one squadron flying F/A-18C(N)s. The F/A-18s flying off Kitty Hawk in the January '93 strike on Iraq were the A-variant and were likely incapable of LGB employment and were said to have dropped only "dumb" bombs, despite carrying FLIR pods.

 

Please read it again ;) . I agree that its not very well written, but while it refers to Bosnia, it compares the self-designation capabilities there to previous experiences in the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq", where "F-18 pilots relied on A-6 Intruders to designate targets for their laser guided bombs"and then continues to say that this is no longer necessary.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think AN/AAS-38A needed AN/ASQ-173 to drop your own LGBs, as you don't need a laser spot tracker to track your own designation. The aircraft already knows the target coordinates through AN/AAS-38A alone. I think AN/ASQ-173 was only required if you wanted to find someone else's laser destination (such as from a wingman or FAC).

 

Thats precisely my interpretation as well :) .

 

Namely:

 

- AN/AAS-38: only FLIR and required AN/ASQ-173 to track an external target illumination. No possibility for self-designation.

 

- AN/AAS-38A: FLIR with laser designator/tracker - could designate/track own illumination, but required AN/ASQ-173 for tracking an externally designated target.

 

- AN/AAS-38B: FLIR with laser designator/tracker capable of tracking both own and externally designated target(AN/ASQ-173 no longer required) + IRST(air-to-air) functionality.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, they were from the 70's, and prone to 1970's reliability issues. They worked great right up until when they didn't.

They were good enough to get the job done, but technology was advancing and the new Mission computers not only had more performance, but were much more reliable and had more growth to them.

 

 

A question I have had for a long time ( even pre Release) that i never found an answer yet:

 

Why were Monochrome Green CRT DDI's continue to be produced to the same spec and fitted into Hornet Productions from 1983 all the way until the end of its production run with the Lot 20 ( and even export Lot 21 Contracts)?

 

By 1998 this would have been Archaic Technology, and not as reliable by more modern electronics standards. Even with the post production Upgrades from the 21st century, the US Navy never requested McDonnell Douglas ( or rather at this point Boeing) for new display beyond changing out the single bottom MPCD to AMPCD.

 

 

ID assume if Budget was an issue preventing additional production of extra AMPCD's then they could have at least saved money by going through with replacing Archaic DDI's with surplus Stocks of MPCD's that they would have had available after Hornets and Harriers had MPCD's swapped out for AMPCDs.

 

An alternative option would have been mids from the super hornet.

 

Compare this to the USMC F/A18A++ upgrades which did infact replace 2 DDI's with LCD color displays.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think AN/AAS-38A needed AN/ASQ-173 to drop your own LGBs, as you don't need a laser spot tracker to track your own designation. The aircraft already knows the target coordinates through AN/AAS-38A alone. I think AN/ASQ-173 was only required if you wanted to find someone else's laser destination (such as from a wingman or FAC).

 

Thats precisely my interpretation as well :) .

 

Namely:

 

- AN/AAS-38: only FLIR and required AN/ASQ-173 to track an external target illumination. No possibility for self-designation.

 

- AN/AAS-38A: FLIR with laser designator/tracker - could designate/track own illumination, but required AN/ASQ-173 for tracking an externally designated target.

 

- AN/AAS-38B: FLIR with laser designator/tracker capable of tracking both own and externally designated target(AN/ASQ-173 no longer required) + IRST(air-to-air) functionality.

 

 

This is good; I can roll with this. Thanks for your help. :)

 

 

Please read it again ;) . I agree that its not very well written, but while it refers to Bosnia, it compares the self-designation capabilities there to previous experiences in the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq", where "F-18 pilots relied on A-6 Intruders to designate targets for their laser guided bombs"and then continues to say that this is no longer necessary.

 

I most certainly read and comprehended it the first time, thank you very much. ;)

 

 

The strike I keep referring to, which took place in January 1993, WAS NOT part of the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq," which took place January - February 1991. Kitty Hawk nor its embarked CVW-15 even took part in the '91 war.

 

 

Typically, when someone refers to the "Persian Gulf war," they're referring to the '91 conflict, not the no-fly zone conflict that started afterwards and sustained itself until March 2003. So its rather obvious your attachment was NOT referring to the no-fly zone conflict of which the Jan. '93 strikes were a part of.

 

 

That should clear up your confusion. :)


Edited by CheckGear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I most certainly read and comprehended it the first time, thank you very much. ;)

 

 

The strike I keep referring to, which took place in January 1993, WAS NOT part of the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq," which took place January - February 1991. Kitty Hawk nor its embarked CVW-15 even took part in the '91 war.

 

 

Typically, when someone refers to the "Persian Gulf war," they're referring to the '91 conflict, not the no-fly zone conflict that started afterwards and sustained itself until March 2003. So its rather obvious your attachment was NOT referring to the no-fly zone conflict of which the Jan. '93 strikes were a part of.

 

 

That should clear up your confusion. :)

 

But it Hornets could deploy LGBs(albeit with assistance from A-6s) in 1991, then surely that capability also existed in 1993...no? :) .

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it Hornets could deploy LGBs(albeit with assistance from A-6s) in 1991, then surely that capability also existed in 1993...no? :) .

 

 

Let's look at what we know so far, shall we? :)

 

 

We know the F/A-18A/B Hornet and the AN/AAS-38 were introduced at the same time.

 

 

We know the F/A-18C/D and the AN/AAS-38A were introduced at around the same time.

 

 

I've seen no evidence suggesting the F/A-18A/B, in the timeframe I'm looking at (January '93), mounted the AN/AAS-38A. This means it still had to use the pod without the laser and had to rely on other planes or FACs for target designation. This regardless of which variant we're talking about, since the "Night Attack" F/A-18C was just entering service and the majority of Hornets involved in the war were F/A-18As and Lot 10/11 F/A-18Cs.

 

 

 

So the question remaining is - was the F/A-18A even capable of dropping LGBs? The available evidence doesn't say 'no.' However, during the '93 strike, why were that many F/A-18As tasked for the mission but weren't armed with LGBs and supported by a laser-designating aircraft? Tactical considerations may have been in play, but consider the following passage by Michael Knights:

 

 

The remaining 28 strikers were PGM-capable aircraft and accounted for the sixteen assessed hits on Iraqi command posts and communications.

 

 

Michael Knights is one of the best analysts in the business, which is why I trust him so much. His passage implies the F/A-18As were incapable of dropping LGBs, either due to some "hardware" or "software" limitation. It seems like there's no other way to find the answer without seeing some documents pertaining to the '93 strike, but the F/A-18As all possessed some capability baseline, did they not?

 

I know this sounds like a trivial matter, but I'm conducting this research for an article, so I need to get this right. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at what we know so far, shall we? :)

 

We know the F/A-18A/B Hornet and the AN/AAS-38 were introduced at the same time.

 

We know the F/A-18C/D and the AN/AAS-38A were introduced at around the same time.

 

I've seen no evidence suggesting the F/A-18A/B, in the timeframe I'm looking at (January '93), mounted the AN/AAS-38A. This means it still had to use the pod without the laser and had to rely on other planes or FACs for target designation.

 

Sounds about right yes :)

 

This regardless of which variant we're talking about, since the "Night Attack" F/A-18C was just entering service and the majority of Hornets involved in the war were F/A-18As and Lot 10/11 F/A-18Cs.

 

Well the "Night Attack" version entered service already in 1990, so it could have been involved in a conflict in 1993 - but then if you have evidence that the ones involved in that particular strike were As, then thats sort of a moot point :) .

 

So the question remaining is - was the F/A-18A even capable of dropping LGBs? The available evidence doesn't say 'no.' However, during the '93 strike, why were that many F/A-18As tasked for the mission but weren't armed with LGBs and supported by a laser-designating aircraft? Tactical considerations may have been in play, but consider the following passage by Michael Knights:

 

Michael Knights is one of the best analysts in the business, which is why I trust him so much. His passage implies the F/A-18As were incapable of dropping LGBs, either due to some "hardware" or "software" limitation. It seems like there's no other way to find the answer without seeing some documents pertaining to the '93 strike, but the F/A-18As all possessed some capability baseline, did they not?

 

I cannot really answer that(I am not that well versed in the -A/B version), but I still think you are reading too much into the quote.

 

It could simply be that having to mix F-18 strike packages with different supporting assets was seen as impractical - i.e. not a case of the F-18s being incapable of delivering the LGBs as such, but just that having to coordinate with other assets for designating the targets for them complicated matters and the F-18s therefore were tasked with attacking targets that didn't require the use of PGMs, while the ones(targets) that did, were assigned to assets that could deliver them autonomously.

 

I know this sounds like a trivial matter, but I'm conducting this research for an article, so I need to get this right. :)

 

Understood :) .

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

So the question remaining is - was the F/A-18A even capable of dropping LGBs? The available evidence doesn't say 'no.' However, during the '93 strike, why were that many F/A-18As tasked for the mission but weren't armed with LGBs and supported by a laser-designating aircraft?

 

 

I've have seen photos of F/A-18A in '91 DS with the ASQ-173.

And none of the available docs says that the A can not use LGBs.

So the info available says A with LGB = OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

so out of curiosity does anyone know what F/A18A features were added within each varying lots before the F/A18C came about?

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...