What's the point of the two seat F/A-18F existing if it's

Electronic warfare and shit.

>>33696365
That's the EA-18G Growler though.

Lower pilot workload. For certain strike missions, having a dedicated crewman to manage the weapons is really helpful, especially if you've got PGMs with a workload-intensive guidance system.

>>33696391
Ah, same reason the Strike Eagle is a two seater, then.

>>33696338
Gotta have a friend to hold your pee cup

>>33696423
Probably. It also helps to have an extra set of eyes for close-in air-to-air, and they might have the second guy manage BVR depending on the mission.

>>33696391
>>33696423
>>33696709
Same reason why the twin-seat Su-30MKs are so popular now. The power of teamwork.

>>33696748
>The power of teamwork.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E

>>33696748
If people really cared about teamwork we'd go back to the side-by-side cockpits like the F-111 so the pilots can jerk eachother off like real teammates do.

>>33697186
>not understanding a tactical reacharound

>>33697352
Have you seen how far apart they put pilots in tandem cockpits? I'd need 5ft arms to give a tactical reacharound like that.

>>33697390
that's what the tactical datalink with helmet is for

The F-18F was meant to replace the F-14 in the two seater strike role.

File: lucoa really makes you think.jpg (79KB, 616x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 616x1024px

>>33698434
>mfw the F/A-18F is actually about the size of the F-14
I had always thought they were only slightly bigger than legacy bugs.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-19 at 1.09.48 PM.png (144KB, 688x791px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 688x791px

>>33696423
Exactly.
Only the Superbug doesn't even have dual controls (hand controllers and foot buttons are explicitly for operating avionics), so the roles are even more specialized than the Mudhen.

>>33698434
>"replace"
>390mi combat radius vs. 500mi
>Mach 1.8 vs Mach 2.34 for interception missions
So did we just spot the Russians an extra 110 miles of airspace for shits and giggles, or what?

>>33698587
cold war was over, intercepting soviet bombers at long range was no longer necessary

File: tactical spurdo.jpg (130KB, 960x956px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 960x956px

>>33698620
Yeah that decision hasn't backfired at all, has it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-fighter-jets-intercept-2-russian-bombers-off-alaskas-coast/

>8 hours ago

File: Tu-142M&P-3C-Orion-1986-DN-SC-87-00265.jpg (2MB, 3000x2164px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2164px

>>33698638
>regular Russian bomber intercepts
>newsworthy
They do this literally all the time. It's how Russia lets you know that you're a relevant country.

File: laughing azns.png (860KB, 1012x646px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 1012x646px

>>33698587
>He thinks fighter jets actually ever even get close to mach 2

>>33698667
Well the F-22 can supercruise at 1.7, so I'd assume Raptors do at least.

File: 2000s-page-1-tile.jpg (386KB, 820x820px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 820x820px

>>33698638
Yeah, what's your point?

>>33698587
Anon, you do realize that even the "oh shit scramble everything" bomber intercept mission profiles developed for the F-14 only had a top speed of ~Mach 1.5 right?

The listed top speed of fighters is almost never actually reached with any combat load.

File: 1980s-page-1-tile.jpg (450KB, 833x833px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 833x833px

>>33698700
I should add this
https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/intercepting-the-bear/

>>33698677
Still almost doubles fuel consumption. It's closer to 4x for jets that can't supercruise. Nevermind the fact that accelerating to mach 2 takes like 50 goddamn miles.

>>33698570

There are provisions for dual controls in some Hornets. They're all in use by the RAGs.

>>33697390
If I'm to believe the bullshit ego-flagging all pilots have, all of them have 6 foot dicks, so I can't imagine it'll be an issue.

>>33698805
>nevermind the fact that accelerating to mach 2 takes like 50 goddamn miles

Which is about 4 seconds worth of distance while maintaining mach 1. 50 miles might as well be point-blank.

>>33698638
>bear poking has been happening long enough that the grand children of the original pilots who started doing it are now intercepting each other

Yea, real news worth, really something to care about at all.

>>33697352
>goes for tactical reach-around
>accidentally pulls ejection seat launcher

>>33696391
>PGM's with a workload intensive guidance system

Are you posting this from 1996?

>>33699490

Laser guided bombs take a decent amount of work to hit their targets.

File: rug pee-ers.jpg (45KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x269px

>>33699461
>mach 1 = 12.5 miles per second

>>33699577

Well technically it depends based on altitude, pressure, and wind. But you're close enough.

>>33699596
Or not. Mach 60 maybe.

>>33696338
So you can shoot the shit with your BFF in the other seat, then after landing go bang your instructor while thinking about your twink RIO

>>33699713

12.5 nautical miles per minute sounds ballpark right for Mach 1, I meant.

>>33699490
Guess how many Gulf War vintage LGBs we still have in inventory.

>>33700059

Not that many because we've been upgrading the seeker kits.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-19 at 5.18.03 PM.png (60KB, 917x195px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 917x195px

>>33699371
>There are provisions for dual controls in some Hornets.
It's either/or, unlike in the Mudhen.

File: 1000 suns.jpg (58KB, 680x464px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 680x464px

>>33699486
>NYaaaah!~

So what are the single seater E's mission profiles?

>>33699490
>Are you posting this from 1996?
That's 1978 actually, that's when they were first designed.

File: intercepted.jpg (467KB, 833x833px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 833x833px

>>33698700
>>33698721

File: F:A-18 BFM VFA-102.webm (3MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x405px

>>33701192
Simpler tasks. Vanilla missions. Preferably with extensive support from other assets. There's quite a bit that can be accomplished with a modern single-seater, and they're perfectly adequate as the meat of the carrier air group.

Two-seaters are dedicated to more specialized roles. Let's say a flight of Super Hornets is tasked with CAP in a region without AEW or GCI support; an F/A-18F WSO could take on some of these duties, providing valuable coordination between aircraft, keeping good IFF practices, working out intercept vectors for the pilots, etc.
On a strike mission, a WSO can provide similar coordination, managing datalinks and communications, buddy-lasing for friendly bomb trucks, etc. WSOs can also handle workload-intensive specialized payloads that would otherwise be deleterious to airmanship in a single-seater, such as photoreconnaissance or jammer pods (note, the Prowler had not one but three EWOs to handle jamming... THREE).

File: intercepted2.jpg (459KB, 833x833px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 833x833px

>>33701633

Because it's fucking great in an intercept for the pilot working the radar and managing formation while the WSO operates the other sensors and monitors the range of the closest groups to command defensive responses if you're spiked.

And for multi-roles, like F/A-18F and F-15E, one person monitoring radar for air to air threats while the other is solely dedicated to working the TPOD and talking to JTACs or to a higher command on SATCOM to get ROE to drop... It's pretty nice. Modern fighters are very fucking task saturating with all the data you have in front of you.

>>33698638
This isnt a job for carriers. USAF handled this fine

The F-14 was designed to intercept Russian Navy Tu-22M bombers with anti-ship missiles. The Russian Navy has had to retire all of its Tu-22Ms in the last year due to budget issues

File: IMG_0169.jpg (83KB, 497x497px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 497x497px

>>33697352
>tactical reacharound
i've been looking for an opportunity to post this