Talk:F/A-18 Hornet\Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 1

Contents

[edit] Jetplane or Helicopter

For someone who doesn't know about the subject, when reading this article, it is difficult to tell whether it is discussing a jetplane or a helicopter. Kingturtle 17:51 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

we are discussing a Jet in this article, this kind of scares me, i am a member of proj Aircraft, i'll get on it as soon as i can. Zeetoboy 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

after looking at article, no changes have been made, page clear. wait..........oh ****, just saw the date on post. my bad Zeetoboy 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture?

where is the picture at the top-right corner?

Photo server has hiccups sometimes. Looks fine for me. --Mmx1 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Price of aircraft

The media says this plane costs $35 million so I'm changing it to that amount.

And the media is always right... - Aerobird 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

no, media is not allways right, i would check a reliable source for the price. never trust the media. they just try to sell newspapers or get people to watch or somting like that. Zeetoboy 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needed Changes

I am of the opinion the Super Hornet info should be moved off to the separate Super Hornet page, as the two are essentially different airframes.

Needs - elaboration on VFAX concept and strike fighter history. Am not comfortable with language first ____ strike fighter, as the Phantom was a dual role aircraft as well (though designed primarily as an interceptor).

- elaboration of A/A+/C differences. - Numbers in service - elaboration of maintenance overhead and comparison with the Tomcat and the prowler

[edit] Aircraft Template

Should Statistical info be done in a sidebox like here or a table (e.g F-15

Armament is really generic - the possibilities are enormous. How to summarize?

--Mmx1 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Range

Removed range figures:

Fighter range 1,379 nm 2,554 km Attack range 1,333 nm 2,469 km Ferry range > 1,546 nm > 2,863 km

These are very nebulous and depend on loadout, mission profile, etc. Boeing gives "combat radius" of 500+ nm, while FAS gives "Combat radius, interdiction, hi-lo-lo-hi" of 290 nm.

--Mmx1 02:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design characterstics

"The LEX allow the Hornet to remain controllable at high aspect ratios."

Perhaps this is mean to say "high angles of attack"?? -- Paul Richter 10:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point; I seem to recall getting it from Orr Kelley's book, but can't confirm as I no longer have the book in my posession. I don't find it implausible that he (a journalist, not an aviation guru) mixed it up with "angle of attack". I'd assumed via context that "aspect ratio" was a synonym for the former. On further inspection, that's far from the case. Change made.

--Mmx1 01:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headline Photo

Seems like it's not there at all, should we find a new one instead?

[edit] HS.1207

I added a note about the exceptionally similar-looking British HS.1207 (P.158) design under the "Operators" section, as that's the only place I could think to fit it, in with the note on the once-considered buy of Super Bugs. If someone else can think of a better place, please feel free to shift it around. - Aerobird 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturer listed in Infobox

  • Subcontractors provide subassenblies. That is part of manufacturing. But if subcontractors are not to be listed, then all the articles need to be that way. The F-22 article is not right. There may be others.. -Fnlayson 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The manufacturer section in the infobox was only designed for the manufacturer and not for subcontractors in any way. Thus the Boeing at the F-22 might be wrong. --Denniss 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Manufactuer is a bit vague. You're really meaning the final assemblier/manufacturer. - Fnlayson 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
How about "Prime Contractor"? I believe Boeing is technically considered the prime contractor on this and the F/A-22, among many other products. "Manufacturer" is a more specific term that probably doesn't accurately describe most of the subcontractors either. As "prime", Boeing is responsible for delivery of the final product, its design, and the integration of all its subcontracted components. Boeing probably manufactures some part of the overall product, but its primary role is prime contractor. In fact, it's probably the case that the Boeing division that acts as the prime contractor actually subcontracts to some other division of Boeing for the actual manufacturing of those components actually manufactured by Boeing. ;) --JJLatWiki 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That'd be OK, except for articles where the prime does most everything. I've tried to explain what the companies do in the F/A-18 and F-22 articles in the text. -Fnlayson 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
These days, it seems less and less likely that a prime is going to do "most everything" though. Boeing manufactures a significant portion of the F-22, not just the radar subsystem. Without the Boeing portion, there is no airplane. But without almost any other subcontractor, it's still a fully-functional product. So isn't it better and more accurate to say, "Prime Contractor" in the case of most modern military aircraft? --JJLatWiki 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No disagreement with that. I just think it'll look a bit silly to list 'Prime Contractor: Company Y' for an aircaft that has no subcontractors, like maybe the F-15. -Fnlayson 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. It might look silly, but I'm not so sure it would, even in such a case. Does such a case exist though? With the merging of M with D, and N with G, and MD with B, etc, etc, calling one the prime and one a sub changes and blurs. However, even if a single company created an entirely new design all on its own and offered that final product to the military, it's highly unlikely that there will not be major subcontractors specified by the contract. For example, the F-15 might have been offered as a complete product by MD, but it wasn't until at least 2 months later that P&W was chosen as the engine subcontractor and Hughes as the radar subcontractor. For the airframe, MD might have been the manufacturer, but for the weapon system, MD was the prime contractor. Maybe if the infobox had the flexibility to show prime contractor in addition to or instead of manufacturer, we could also include major systems subcontractors like the radar, engines, etc. --JJLatWiki 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove EA-18G

The EA-18G is not a variant of the F/A-18 Hornet, but a variant of F/A-18 E-F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is much a variant of the Hornet as the YF-17 was of the F-5. So I propose removing the EA-18G since it already exists as a variant under the Super Hornet. Of course any facts under the Hornet entry should moved to the Super Hornet entry. Any thoughts? --JJLatWiki 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It should be briefly mentioned here cause it is a variant of the F/A-18 family. But only a couple sentences with a link is needed here for an overview (cut out middle 2 sentences. Put the details in the F/A-18E/F article. -Fnlayson 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I cut EA-18G paragraph back to 2 sentences. See what you think... -Fnlayson 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. I like what you've done, but I would not oppose further reductions to even fewer facts. Like "The EA-18G is an electronic attack variant of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. See EA-18G Growler" But I also like the way it is. p.s. I linked directly to the EA-18G to hopefully reduce the drive of other editors to bulk it back up. --JJLatWiki 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Good. Cutting out the last sentence wouldn't bother me. I didn't want to do too much at one time. -Fnlayson 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge F-18 Hornet here

  • Merge. Not enough differences or information to justify a separate article. Maybe if info on the Swiss F-18s had been added, as was proposed in the last round of merge discussions, but that was not done. Now that the Finnish Air Force intends to add the attack capability back in (2006 reports), there won't be many differneces at all. - BillCJ 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Finlay, thanks for catching my Oops!! - BillCJ 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. Took me a minute to figure out what you meant. -Fnlayson 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge The F-18 article will probably need to be cut in half or so to fit reasonably in the F/A-18 article. -Fnlayson 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I can be obtuse sometimes. Since some of the information is repeated in this article already, esp background, it shoulnd't be much of a problem. I just noticed there's 2 long paragraphs on the CF-18, and it has its own article! - BillCJ 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge There is very little technical information to be merged, but the history/politics is vital. The attack capability makes this even more interesting. There is no guarantie that the weaponry will be the original US F/A 18. -- Petri Krohn 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, the information could be added as a seaprate paragraph in the F/A-18 article. The Finnish version differs quite a lot when it comes to electronics and MLU's, but still I believe both articles could benefit from the merger.--MoRsE 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirected here and Moved material to Finnish Air Force. There was not much space (or a place) to merge any of the stuff here, so I added one sentence. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Too late. I would have opposed this merge if I'd seen it. The F-18 was used by the Finns and the Swiss, and as you said there too much information to include it all here, and since the Swiss used it to, it doesn't just belong in the Finnish Air Force article. I'd support splitting it back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the original page was that no one seemed to want to actually put any information on the Swiss version in the article, 2 years after it had been suggested, other than to mention that the Swiss used it. The Swiss have added the ground attack capability, and the Finnish Air Force is considering doing the same. As such, there really isn't that much difference anymore. In addition, most of the unique content is now in the article on the Finnish Air Force, whose editors don't seem to mind hosting it. However, if someone wishes to address the problems raised with the page, I could support it. In addition, it might be worthwhile to place all the export versions (except for the CF-18) in the same article. This would give room for expanding content on all the various export models. Those variants that grow too much could be split off later. - BillCJ 22:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • The history/politics can be stated in one paragraph. The key for me is not whether a variant "deserves" its own article, but whether there is enough information to fill out such an article. As the article currently stands, there is not. - BillCJ 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So what you are in fact proposing is deletion of the article. What part of the present content would you include in F/A-18 Hornet? I doubt whether there would be space for more than "one paragraph". The F-18 Hornet is now far more than a stub or one paragraph. -- Petri Krohn 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I said the "history/politics" can be covered in one paragraph; its basically two in the F-18 article, and I believe I can merge the 2 together and not lose any content. I am for including all the information there that is not already duplicated in the main article, and I think it can be done in two or three paragraphs.
There is not that much original content there to begin with. If more had been added as had been suggested in September, such as includin information on the Swiss variant, which has similar reasons for not having a ground-attack role, I wouldn't be supporing the merger. Take a look at the CF-18 Hornet article for some ideas on content worthy of a separate article. If those opposing the merger would promise to work on expanding it in the next two months or so (end of Jan), I would support keeping the article. There are several WP:AIR-recommended features I'd like to add, such as the Aircraft Infobox and the Related contents section, which would go a long way toward expanding the article, but I'm waiting for a decision here.
By the way, I took 2 paragraphs on the CF-18 out of the main article, becuase most of it was covered in its own article. The original material in the paragraphs is currently being worked into the article. I'm not against having separate articles for variants; I just want them to be good articles.- BillCJ 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

By my count, it's 3-1 for the merge. If the suggestions I have made about improving the Finnish F-18 article had been responded to, or any attempt made to improve the article since the last vote on Nov 13, I might have held off my vote. However, in the absence of any response at all, and seeing the the opposing user has been active on Wiki since that time, and since suggestions made in the preivous round of discussions on meger, I am concluding that we need to proceed with the merge. Whlie I understand the desire to have an article dealing with the Finnish F-18 for national or cultural reasons, this is not the Finnish language WIki, which would be the place for that.

If someone wants to make the time and effort to expand the article beyond its current form, including adding content on the similar Swiss version (which again, in the absence of any response on that suggstion, I assume has not been done for national reasons), they are free to work on it. The current content of the article will remain in the History of that page, which will become a redirect here. At that time, it might be wise to achieve a consensus on splitting the article again, as doing so unilaterally might lead to a consensus to merge it here again.

For the record, I worked for 2 months on getting an article on the EA-18 Growler ready, before proposing a split off of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article, so as to avoid having minium content which might lead to its being merged back into the E/F article.

If I am the person doing the merger (hopefully this week), I will take great care to retain as much of the unique content on the Finnish F-18 page, if not in the FInnish section, then somewhere relevant within the article. However, I won't be able to retain all ot it. (See below for a possible solution.) - BillCJ 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HS.1207

In an interesting twist, the 1976 British HS.1207 (P.158) design carries a striking resemblance to the F/A-18A.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the point, since the F-18 design began in the late 1960s, and the YF-17 flew in 1974, 2 years before the HS.1207 was designed. As uncited info, it appears to be Original Research, as if someone had seen a drawing of the HS.1207, and noted its resemblance to the F-18, and noted that here. From what my own research has been able to gather, the HS.1207 was not even a carrier-capable design. I posted an "fact" tag on Nov 22, which has now been there for 12 days, so I am removing the sentence. - BillCJ 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe the point was that the British plane design was influenced by the YF-18/F-18. It still needed a cite saying so. Otherwise it's just somebody's speculation. (I'm still not used to calling these things OR.) -Fnlayson 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Article Proposal

It may seem strange that after proposing the merger of the Finnish F-18 Hornet article, I am now going to propose a new article to inclue that version, but I am. The Finnsih article has existed for 4 years, but with very little added content since that time. While I agree that the differences warranted extensive treatment, there has been little effort over the past 4 years to seriously expand its content. Two years ago (not 4 months, as I had not read the year right), another merger discussion on that page had suggested adding the Swiss variant into the article, as both variants focus on the air-to-air role, and carried the F-18 designation. For whatever reason, the sugestion has been outright ignored. This, and the current lack of content, were my primary reasons for supporting the merger.

As I have looked at the Export variants and Foreign oerators sections, I wonder if there might be a place for an article covering all the export variants in greater depth (except for the Canadian variant, which has a substansial article already). Just a few sentences per variant, plus the info on the Finnish Hornet, would fill out an article quite well to start with, while leaving plenty space for expansion.

I will wait a few days on merging the Finnish article for comments. In fact, if we did this as a move from F-18 Hornet to a new article, we could retain the Finnish article's history.

As fas as a title, would F/A-18 Hornet (Export variants) be too long and wordy? Of course, consider the following list from the Variants section ((A)F/A-18A, CF-18 Hornet, EF-18 Hornet, KAF-18 Hornet, F-18C/D Hornet, F-18C/D Hornet). All but Australia use a version of the straight F-18 designation, so just expanding the F-18 Hornet article is anothr option.

Any comments or suggestions? - BillCJ 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I think there's enough info in the Jenkins book to warrant individual articles. Unfortunately, I no longer have it at my disposal or the time to incorporate it, but my goal had been to create a page for each export variant. --Mmx1 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Many of the export variants are similar. I think that it is distracting to have separate articles for each individual variant. There are four major variants (Cobra, Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler) and IMHO that is sufficient. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northrop's role

The article says that Northrop and McDonnell Douglas partnered to build the F-18 with Northrop intending to be the prime on a land based version. There's no mention on their involvement after that. Are they a sub now or did they sell out their part to MD? Or something else? Thanks. -Fnlayson 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Northrop is still listed as the principal subcontractor. [1] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks. That should be clarified. I'll try to add a couple sentences telling what each does similar what is in the F-22 article. Something like that anyway. -Fnlayson 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Northrop was a full partner until their lawsuit agaist MDD for competing against it's F-18L for land-based orders. As part of the settlement, MDD bought the full rights to the Hornet. I have a couple of sources on this (printed), and I'll try to get something worked up in a few days. - BillCJ 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the merge tag for the F-18L page (which I didn't even know we had the article). It has cited info on the suit. - BillCJ 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like the details on the MD-Northrop dealings from F-18L got added in the merge. I'll try to add a sentence or two to fill in the holes. -Fnlayson 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah I just added the second paragraph from the F-18L article. I didn't see a quick way to cut that down. -Fnlayson 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That's because the text from F-18L has been added in yet. I posted the whole text below, but had to take care of "real world" issues before getting a chance to put it in. I'll do what I can, but feel free to work on it also. - BillCJ 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry I scrolled past that section below. I'll see what else I can do on it. -Fnlayson 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested merger

F-18L → F/A-18 Hornet

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support Not enough content to justify a separate arctle; anything that doesn't belong here should fit in the YF-17 Cobra article. - BillCJ 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Support — What Bill said. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'm fine with that. That would add more history of the program. -Fnlayson 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds good to me. - Aerobird 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Will merge the page shortly. - BillCJ 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material from F-18L merger

The following material is from the F-18L article. I am not going to try to place all the info under the "F-18L" entry. SOmeone stated in the Merger discussion that the info could help fill out the History section more, so I placed it all here for reference. - BillCJ 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The F-18L was a variant of the naval F/A-18 Hornet, designed by Northrop in the 1970's. Though based on the Northrop YF-17 design, McDonnell Douglas was the prime contractor on the F/A-18 due to its more extensive history of building carrier aircraft. The YF-17 was based on an internal design the P530 Cobra, which Northrop had planned to sell to foreign customers, and it developed the F-18L as a potential export aircraft. Since it did not have to be strengthened for carrier service, it was expected to be lighter and better performing, and a strong competitor to the F-16 Fighting Falcon then being offered to American allies. The F-18L was 7,700 pounds lighter than the F/A-18A, due to a lighter landing gear, removal of the wing folding mechanism, and reduced frame thickness in some areas. Though the aircraft retained an arresting hook, it, too, was lightened. The most obvious external difference was the removal of the "snags" on the leading edge of the wings and stabilators. It still retained 71% commonality with the F/A-18 by parts weight, and 90% of the high-value systems, including the avionics, radar, and ECM suite, though alternatives were offered. Unlike the F/A-18, the F-18L carries no fuel in its wings. The F-18L lacked weapons stations on the intakes; it instead had 3 underwing pylons on each side.
The partnership between the two firms soured, however, over competition for foreign sales. Northrop felt that McDonnel Douglas would put the F/A-18 in direct competition with the F-18L. In October 1979, Northrop filed a series of lawsuits charging that McDonnell was using Northrop technology developed for the F-18L for foreign sales in violation of their agreement, and asked for a moratorium on foreign sales of the Hornet via McDonnell Douglas. The case was resolved in 1985 when McDonnell agreed to pay Northrop $50 million for complete rights to the design, without any admission of wrongdoing. By then Northrop had ceased work on the F-18L, and most export orders captured by the F-16 or the F/A-18. [1] The F-18 Hornet ordered by the Finnish and the Swiss air forces was in fact a F/A-18 without the ground attack capabilities. The Swiss later had the ground attack hardware retrofitted.
  • Looks like it is all done now. -Fnlayson 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users in Intro

This is an American-designed plane built for American forces. What is wrong with stating that in the Intro? And technically, the USN and USMC are not air forces, but naval air arms. - BillCJ 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yep, the DoD paid for the plane's development. Use by other forces was a secondary thing. -Fnlayson 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA of the future?

If this article had some more inline cites and less lists it would be an excellent GA candidate. Just thought I would bring that up. Perhaps a collaboration is in order? IvoShandor 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • On the lists, I could see doing something with the Milestones, but the others such as variants are needed. -Fnlayson 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You need good sources to move up to GA/Featured status. Jenkins is a pretty thorough one but I no longer have access to a copy. The Milestones list should be obliterated (and integrated elsewhere into the article); it is direct copyright infringement of the Boeing milestone and should be expressed in paragraph form (mostly in history), not as a list.

--Mmx1 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Good catch. I had thought the list was reworded or something. I removed it. Looks like several of the early milestones are included in the History section already. -Fnlayson 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of F/A-18As for US use

The Boeing Milestones page has a total of 380 F/A-18A models produced for US use. The wiki article had 371 from AirToAirCombat.com. The article also stated that nine F/A-18As were used in the flight systems development. I've changed the number to the Boeing statistic. I've also changed the statement to After a production run of 380 F/A-18As (including the nine assigned to flight systems development) however this is an assumption about the inclusion of the nine and probably should be removed. Does anyone know the actual connection between the 380 and 371 references? - Ctbolt 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see why the flight systems ones should not count in production numbers. Are they the initial planes used for flight testing and so forth? -Fnlayson 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing Milestones

To help out, here are the Boeing Milestones that are already referenced:

  • May 2, 1975 - The U.S. Navy selects McDonnell Douglas Corporation as the prime contractor for development of the F-18 strike fighter.
  • Sept. 13, 1978 - The U.S. Navy's F-18 Hornet makes its public debut during rollout ceremonies in St. Louis, Mo.
  • Nov. 18, 1978 - The F-18A Hornet makes its first flight, taking off from Lambert International Airport with McDonnell Aircraft chief test pilot Jack Krings at the controls.
  • Jan. 16, 1979 - The first F-18 is flown to the Naval Air Test Center in Patuxent River, Md., for continued flight testing.
  • Nov. 3, 1979 - the F-18 completes its first sea trials after the third Hornet makes 32 successful launches and landings aboard the aircraft carrier USS America.
  • December 1979 - The first F-18B makes its maiden flight.
  • April 1980 - The first production F-18, Hornet number 12, is delivered to the U.S. Navy.
  • Oct. 25, 1982 - Canada becomes the first international customer when the first CF-18 Hornet is delivered to the Canadian Forces Air Command.
  • December 1982 - The U.S. Navy officially redesignates the Hornet the F/A-18 to emphasize its dual role capabilities as both an air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical aircraft.
  • Jan. 7, 1983 - The F/A-18 Hornet officially enters U.S. operational service with U.S. Marine Corps squadron VMFA-314 at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Ca.
  • October 1983 - The first Hornet is delivered to a U.S. Navy operational squadron.
  • Oct. 29, 1984 - The first F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force.
  • Nov. 22, 1985 - The first EF-18 for the Spanish Air Force is delivered.
  • March 10, 1986 - The U.S. Navy selects the F/A-18 Hornet as the official aircraft of the Blue Angels flight demonstration team.
  • November 1986 - The first F/A-18 Hornet squadron arrives in Japan to prepare for deployment aboard USS Midway.
  • February 1987 - The 100th Canadian CF-18 is delivered.
  • April 1987 - The 500th Hornet is delivered.
  • September 1987 - First delivery of an F/A-18C/D.
  • Sept. 3, 1987 - The F/A-18C makes its first flight.
  • Jan. 22, 1988 - The 380th and final F/A-18A for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is delivered, accepted by VMFA-312.
  • May 6, 1988 - The F/A-18D makes its first flight.
  • Oct. 3, 1988 - Switzerland's Federal Military Department announces plans to purchase 34 Hornets, armament, spares and support, a contract worth an estimated $1.9 billion.
  • Nov. 14, 1989 - The first production night attack F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to Patuxent River, Md.
  • April 10, 1990 - The F/A-18 Hornet fleet surpasses one million flight hours.
  • May 11, 1990 - The U.S. Marine Corps rolls out the night attack F/A-18D at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Ca.
  • Jan. 17, 1991 - During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. Navy pilots Lt. Nick Mongilio and Lt. Cmdr. Mark Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission. While going out from USS Saratoga in the Red Sea to bomb an airfield in southwestern Iraq, an E-2 warns them of approaching MiG-21 aircraft. The Hornets shoot down two MiGs and resume their bombing run before returning to Saratoga.
The wiki text is an exact copy of this. It wasn't an exact copy. It has been reworded more.
  • April 18, 1991 - The 1,000th F/A-18 Hornet is delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.
  • Oct. 8, 1991 - The first Kuwait Air Force F/A-18 Hornet is delivered.
  • May 6, 1992 - Finland's Ministry of Defense approves the purchase of 64 Hornets, a program worth approximately $3 billion.
  • Feb. 10, 1993 - An F/A-18 Hornet becomes the 10,000th jet aircraft built by McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis when it is delivered to the U.S. Navy.
  • June 7, 1995 - The first F-18 Hornet for the Finnish Air Force is delivered.
  • Jan. 25, 1996 - The first F/A-18 Hornet for the Swiss Air Force is delivered.
  • December 12, 2002 - The F/A-18 Hornet fleet surpasses five million flight hours.
  • August 2000 - The final delivery of an F/A-18, an F/A-18D Hornet, is delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.
  • May 25, 2005 - The F/A-18 Hornet lands on the French carrier De Gaulle for the first time, during joint exercises which were part of Multi-National Maritime Exercise (MNME) 05-1.

- You are most welcome to edit the above list. - Ctbolt 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related aircraft

  • I'm wondering about F-5 and T-38 listed in the Related developement section. Seems like these are pre-YF-17 Cobra designs and should not be listed here. But maybe I'm missing something. What about it? -Fnlayson 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see leaving the F-5, though it is questionable. Take out the T-38 though, because it's not a fighter, and hence does not have as direct a relationship as with the F-5. Probably take ou the Hal Tejas also, as they aren't relly comparable. - BillCJ 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)