How is it pronounced, is it Eff, Eh 18, or what?
Is there any difference between the F/A-18 and the F-18? Or are they one and the same.
I’ve always said F-18 and F-A-18. I’m sure I’m going to be wrong about this, and I’m even more sure someone else will come and correct me very shortly. But I want to say I heard somewhere along the lines that the FA-18 is for attacking (so what’s the F-18 for?). Also I believe one of them (FA-18?) has wings that fold up so that it has a smaller footprint on an aircraft carrier.
It is prounounced as single letters “F” “A” 18.
The F/A designation means that particular plane has a dual purpose: Fighter / Attack. I’m not sure if there are any straight F-18’s anymore, but if there were that would designate it as Fighter only - no Attack configuration. Likewise, things like the A-10 is an Attack only plane, not suited for fighter duties, i.e. air-to-air combat. C designation is for Cargo planes, i.e. C-130. There are a whole boat-load of designations, more educated dopers in military nomenclature can add further.
MeanJoe
They are one in the same.
The first is an acronym designating a Fighter/Attack platform and the F-18 is usually how most people would decribe talking about the hornet.
Normally , after the F/A-18 there would be a series of letters afterwards , like the F/A-18A,B,C,D etc.
These would indicate the age of the model , with the A being the first series and the F would be the latest generation. Some letters would dictate if its a trainer or two seat model, that would normally be tasked with SEAD or Iron-hand missions.
The Hornet was one of the first platforms that was built with a dual mission in mind. Before that , both the airforce and navy had purpose built aircraft that could perform other missions such as bombing , but not to a great degree , if one was operating a fighter.
Declan
To clarify, the F/A-18A is the first-generation plane’s single-seat configuration. The F/A-18B is the first-generation two-seat configuration. Few or none of these A/Bs are still in the fleet (notable exception: they are flown by the Blue Angles).
The F/A-18C is the most advanced single-seat model of the original Hornet. The F/A-18D is the most advanced two-seat model of the original Hornet. So the C/Ds are the most advanced Hornets out there.
However, a newer, larger plane called the “Super Hornet” has been joining the fleet. This plane superficially resembles the Hornet, but is larger, has more range, blah, blah, blah. This plane is called the F/A-18E in the single-seat configuration and the F/A-18F in the two-seat configuration. These planes share about 60% parts commonality with the C/Ds, but can’t really be considered derivatives of those planes.
Finally, there are new variations of the F/A-18E/F under development or consideration, including the E/A-18G “Growler,” intended to replace the aging E/A-6B Prowler (electonic warfare), and the K/A-18 aerial tanker.
So the latest generation Hornet could be the C/D or the E/F or the G, depending on your definition. Regardless, it is a very versatile plane, as Declan and others have noted.
Ex-USAF pilot …
A bit of history.
Going back to WW-II the Navy & then-Army Air Corps bureaucracies had totally different systems for designating airplanes. After WWII when the Dept of Defense was created in 1947, one of the things which got standardized was aircraft nomenclature.
As the others have said, “F” means Fighter, i.e. an airplane that attacks other airplanes inflight. “A” means Attack, anairplane that destroys ground targets, but distinguished from a B=Bomber by shorter range and more up-close & personal tactics.
Around the time of Viet Nam, the Air Force found itslef using formerly F-type airplanes for Attack missions as well. So they sort of blurred the designations, and anything fast was named F, regardless of whether it was really doing the attack role. The F-111, F-4 , F-105 and even the F-104 where all used as bomb carriers in the SEA theater.
Meanwhile, the Navy was very Catholic, keeping the Fs and the As totally seperate. Different airplanes, different missions, different organizations, different career paths. In short, different Empires.
Eventually it became time to replace all of DOD’s Viet Nam-era aircraft. The USAF went first & bought the -16 product from General Dynamics. It is/was really a Fighter & Attack aircraft in one, the first truly successful hybrid. Being lax on terminology, and “Fighter” being a much sexier term than “Attack”, they called it the F-16.
Then the Navy & McDonnell Douglas came up with their similar concept, the -18. But what to call it? Navy HQ intended to use it to replace both the A-6 & the F-14, and the two communities of officers and bureaucrats both insisted on naming it for themselves. So it was going to be the A-18, no, F-18, no, screw you, I was here first, you were not, I was too, NO I was, MOMMM!
And Mom settled arguement: F/A-18 it was and shall forever be. An ugly bureaucratic compromise.
And now you the rest of the story … (with apologies to PH)
Ugly it may be, but established it also is, and not just in USN anymore. The new F-22 Raptor, which will replace the F-15, has been rechristened the F/A-22. That reflects the fact that it will also replace the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is a ground-attack airplane with no A in its name. Scuttlebutt is that the Raptor name change is to help keep the program sold to Congress by emphasizing its versatility.
The F-117 stealth fighter is not, and was never conceived as, a fighter; it’s role is also ground attack, and of a very specific type.
Back to the Hornet, it’s derived from a straight-up fighter design, the F-17. Export/comanufactured versions that don’t have all the carrier-landing doodads or all the ground-attack accessories don’t necessarily have A designations either, such as the Canadian CF-18.
In reply to the original post - in Australian service it is commonly called the eff 18. Strictly speaking, it’s the eff ay 18 but eff 18 is shorter and easier to say. Plus there’s no chance of confusing the F/A-18 with the F-18 because, strictly speaking, there is no F-18 - it’s the same aircraft. You will always see it written in official papers as F/A-18.
Okay… if “A” is ground attack, why was the Skyhawk (eeny weeny but cool-looking Navy fighter) designated A-4?
Because it wasn’t a fighter, it was a small bomber which was replaced by the A-6.
Way back when the Air Force wanted a small interceptor they asked for designs and the XF-16 and XF-17 prototypes were made. The F-16 won. A few years later the Navy asked for bids on an aircraft to replace both the F-14 and the A-6. Boeing figured it had a perfectly good aircraft already designed so they changed the name from the F17 to the F/a 18 and won the contract. Of course they had to do some modifications for carrier operations but it was basically the same design submitted a few years earlier. Here is the link to Boeings Hornet page.
The A4 Skyhawk was also used in Australian service, by the Royal Australian Navy. My father was actually a Skyhawk mechanic. The Skyhawk was always intended as an attack aircraft, not a fighter. There are reasons it doesn’t make a very good fighter - it has an air-ground radar, not an air-air radar, it was relatively slow with a poor service ceiling compared to other fighters of the day , no afterburner, the only air to air weapons it carried were a pair of 20mm or 30mm cannons and short range sidewinder missles. The fighter of the day in US Navy service was the F4 Phantom - a big, twin engined air to air missile equipped air superiority fighter.
Compare the two here;
Here is a cite for the attack role of theA-4 , and a link to theSkyhawk Association . You maybe confused because the airforce and Navy used old A-4s as OPFOR aircraft at Redflag and Topgun.
I just want to throw this in because, well just because:
When I was maybe 9 years old, 23 years ago, I bought and built a model that called it an “F-18 A-Hornet”. I still tend to call it that to this day, knowing full well I probably sniffed too much glue building the damn thing.
[hijack] The A4 does have the distinction of being the smallest nuclear capable aircraft ever built [/hijack]
The scooter was designed as a light attack day platform, as upposed to the A-6 which would have been an all weather bomber with a night capability , in the early models.
As mentioned by others , it used to play the role of RedForce fighters , in Disimilar Air Combat Maneuvers. To get navy pilots trained in fighting small , smokeless , and highly maneuverable aircraft.
On a personal note , several years ago I was vacationing with the folks down in Virginia Beach , and at the time the weather was just uggh. Cloud cover , rain showers intermittently , cold and then …
On the third day the weather broke , it was roughly about 9:30 in the morning and I heard this helicopter puttering around , turned out to be a lamps3, but the sunshine was perfect , CAVU weather , and around 75 degrees ambient.
Off in the distance you could hear a faint harmonic of whistling , and I am just swinging my head from side to side , to see whats commin.
Bang out of nowwhere , well really they came out of the west at about 4000 feet , was a squadron of Tomcats and a mix of Scooters , just gettin into a furball.
Man it was heaven.
Declan
In Canada it’s the CF-18 (cee eff eighteen) even though it serves as an attack plane as well as, if not more than, a fighter. We’ve won the william tell bombing competition with it before, surely helped by the fact that we were going up against older USAF F-16s and we have less advanced avionics so we’re better at dropping iron bombs by eye.
Tangent: reading this thread i got curious about the XF-17 but can’t find and info/picture on the web, other than it was northrop’s competition for the F-16. Any help?
Try “YF-17” instead and you’ll find a wealth of info.
Read the thread - it’s covered. F-18 was the original designation, changed to F/A-18 to highlight the Hornet’s mulit-role capability. The “A” suffix denotes the first production model - just like an F-15A or an F-86A. Next model is usually “B”, although lately (since the '80s) this tends to denote a two-seat variant of the first model - the F/A-18B or the F-16B being examples of this. Using the current system, the “C” model is usually the second variant of a fighter with the “D” being the two-seater…and so on. Every once in a while something will throw a monkey wrench into the works, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is a two-seat fighter/bomber version of the F-15 fighter - probably should be called the F/A-15E, but isn’t.
Does that clear things up?
I think Eleusis was talking about the model being mislabeled.
F-18 A-Hornet.
The big joke when I was flying C-141s was of the Japanese model company that produced a model kit of the “C-141 Starlizard”. The name is really “Starlifter”, but with the camo paint scheme it did look like a lizard. To this day I still call the thing the Lizard.
