The last "Hornet" US Navy made its farewell flight

The U.S. naval forces finally said goodbye to F / A-18C Hornet fighters, completely switching to using F / A-18F Super Hornet fighters. As reported "Warspot" referring to the portal navaltoday.com, the ceremony of withdrawal of the last fighter of this brand from the US Navy was held at the Oceana air base in Virginia.


The last "Hornet" US Navy made its farewell flight

Last F / A-18C Hornet US Navy with tail number 300


Latest F / A-18C American Hornet fleethaving tail number 300 is finally written off. The plane was part of the 106th fighter squadron (106 Strike Fighter Squadron), based in Cecil Field in Florida, but the farewell ceremony took place at the Oceana Air Force Base in Virginia. The F / A-18C Hornet fighter in the air made the last lap over the air base, accompanied by three F / A-18F Super Hornets, after which it was decommissioned. According to the U.S. Navy, this fighter made its first flight on October 14, 1988. The last-flight pilot, Lieutenant Andrew Jalali, was also born in 1988. Thus, the F / A-18C Hornet fighter was no longer in the US Navy.

Despite the fact that the American fleet got rid of the obsolete Hornets, replacing them with a modernized version, they are not going to completely abandon the aircraft. These aircraft are removed only from the combat units of the US Navy, but remain in service with the reserve. In addition, the US Marine Corps, which is also armed with the F / A-18C Hornet, has no plans to replace them with another model, and even ordered their deep modernization, during which the aircraft will receive radar with AFAR.

The F / A-18C Hornet, an American carrier-based fighter-bomber and attack aircraft developed in the 1970's, was the main aircraft of the U.S. Navy until the end of the 90's of the last century, when the US Navy began to receive a deeply modernized version of the F / F A-18, better known as Super Hornet. The final decision to write off the Hornets from the US Navy was made earlier this year, and the fighter withdrawal ceremony began on February 1. However, several aircraft have continued to fly to date.
Photos used:
navaltoday.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Observer2014 9 October 2019 20: 07 New
    • 16
    • 22
    -6
    The last "Hornet" US Navy made its farewell flight
    A landmark event, by the way. This infection has brought so much grief to people over the years of its existence. The Americans used it very, very often, carrying their democracy. Well, the plane itself no Nothing outstanding. Although a workhorse, so to speak, Aircraft of clear skies. Against countries with air defense and air force killed.
    1. Tusv 9 October 2019 20: 16 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Quote: Observer2014
      Nothing outstanding. Although a workhorse, so to speak, Aircraft of pure skies.

      And who with our paramilitary easy? But you stay away from Nashensky, bombing the defenseless and a decent salary (not a damn thing. This term) is dripping negative
      1. Shurik70 9 October 2019 21: 48 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Americans love to "retire," and then "return to duty."
        The planes will probably not be sent to scrap metal, but to the "airplane cemetery." In the desert, where there is no rainfall and almost no storms. Ideal storage location.
        1. YOUR 10 October 2019 03: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          It `s naturally. They always do that. And the planes are stored there in good condition, to carry out maintenance procedures and flight.
          US Air Force Base "Davis-Monten" is called.
    2. Santa Fe 10 October 2019 04: 45 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Well, the plane itself is no Nothing outstanding. Although the workhorse is, so to speak, the plane is clear the sky. Against countries with killed air defense and air forces.

      Another joker shared his “expert opinion”, without the slightest suspicion of knowledge of the topic

      ... there is a different opinion of designers and specialists in the field of aerodynamics. It is believed that the design of the “Hornet” contains elements that are not typical for aircraft of that era. For example, four-vortex aerodynamics

      As a result, everyone agrees that the Hornet is a worthy adversary for any modern fighter

      The design of the tail of Hornet excludes the influence of aerodynamic shadow .., it can be controlled at angles of attack up to 40 °. ... fly belly forward, while performing maneuvers and, at the request of the pilot, to freely get out of this state. With a two-keel plumage, the deviation of the rudders in different directions made it possible to create a diving moment - the fighter lowered its nose and reached subcritical angles of attack.

      The solution with a V-shaped keel arrangement was universally recognized as the right one. This arrangement of keels subsequently received all modern aircraft - PAK FA, F-22, even single-engine F-35.
  2. Tusv 9 October 2019 20: 09 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    One of the best deck, if not the best, retires. Super-top with some kind of goiter. Not as beautiful as the cornet. But surely with a decent radar and electronic warhead
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sandor Clegane 9 October 2019 20: 13 New
      • 10
      • 4
      +6
      Quote: Tusv
      One of the best deck

      why one of? - the best .... I would really like for us to have carrier-based aviation preserved and multiplied
      1. ultra 9 October 2019 22: 42 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        This best one in his time lost f16.
    3. Observer2014 9 October 2019 20: 19 New
      • 8
      • 19
      -11
      Why is it better? Speed? Invisibility? Thrust-to-weight ratio? Maneuverability? This is a clean mass unit of clean sky. When they did it, they wanted to cross the attack aircraft and the fighter. But as you know, any unit that can do everything. Doesn’t do anything perfectly. So it is. Its success is success in the US armed forces .. which compensated for its shortcomings.
      1. Tusv 9 October 2019 20: 29 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Observer2014
        They wanted to cross the attack aircraft and the fighter.

        stop Here, you understand, and the Su-30 is pure F / A (Fighter-Fighter, Attack-Attack aircraft) A good machine turned out by the way. But Our pure "earthworm" even in naval aviation. It's just that Russia is a giant aircraft carrier hi
        1. Observer2014 9 October 2019 20: 40 New
          • 6
          • 13
          -7
          Well, at one time chasing races thoughtlessly with the Americans. Here you’ve seen enough and let’s do it yourself. True, our glider is better for air combat. From here I won by maneuverability. I cannot say the equipment is better or worse. Therefore, I will not lie. (Diplomatically spoke out bully ) Well, we have one aircraft carrier. Just one. Plans were many. Therefore, I agree with your
          It's just that Russia is a giant aircraft carrier
          yes hi
          1. Tusv 9 October 2019 20: 43 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Observer2014
            Well, at one time they raced thoughtlessly with the Americans.

            Why is it without thinking. The T-10 glider to go nuts as thought out. Even without UVT, Cobra was made
            1. Observer2014 9 October 2019 20: 44 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              I'm not talking about a glider! And about the very concept of the aircraft. hi
              About what I wanted such as the F18 in terms of capabilities. I am well acquainted with the history of the creation of one and the other aircraft.
        2. NEXUS 9 October 2019 21: 55 New
          • 8
          • 6
          +2
          Quote: Tusv
          Here, you understand, and Su-30 pure F / A (Fighter - Fighter, Attack - Attack aircraft)

          You compared the Hornet to SU-30. 30 is primarily a fighter, and not a deck one. A completely different, so to say weight category. In aerial combat, with equal pilots and conditions, the SU-30 will eat the Hornet and will not choke, and in 100 cases from 100.
          1. Republican 10 October 2019 00: 53 New
            • 13
            • 3
            +10
            I would like to see how Su-33
            with a full load and full tanks, it will take off from Kuzi and take off with the F-18 with a full load and full tanks, which will take off from Nimitz. God, there are so many wretched "military" sofa experts on this site. How do you make conclusions about the technique? According to the yellow press? For military propaganda? By their subjective conclusions, which are not related to reality at all? How can hatred of the enemy make you stupid before your eyes?
            1. NEXUS 10 October 2019 09: 10 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Republican
              I would like to see how Su-33

              Listen, super-duper expert, I was not talking about SU-33, but about SU-30. These are slightly different cars. Or do you not know this?
          2. Tusv 10 October 2019 12: 29 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: NEXUS
            You compared the Hornet with the SU-30.

            Andrei hi I just said that both cars are F / A class. As a “F” (fighter) do not go to a fortuneteller, SU 30 eats both a hornet and a super hornet, and both will not choke at once. Question to the "A" attack aircraft. I read that with S-8 from the second NURS they get into the tank
            1. NEXUS 10 October 2019 12: 38 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Tusv
              I read that with C-8 from the second NURS they get into the tank

              Vladimir hi
              As was noted correctly in many comments in the thread, the Hornet is a "clear sky" plane. Nursom, maybe he gets somewhere, but only who will give him in the war, where is the enemy’s strong air defense?
              And then, the deck is a priori weaker in almost everything against a ground multirole fighter.
              1. Tusv 10 October 2019 12: 44 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: NEXUS
                Nursom, maybe he gets somewhere, but only who will give him in the war, where is the enemy’s strong air defense?

                In general, the S-8 is the classic armament of Our attack aircraft. And do not talk about air defense. Angry and hungry for the goal. Well, at least one wing would fly. So does not give aviation
      2. Sandor Clegane 9 October 2019 20: 34 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Quote: Observer2014
        How is he better?

        whom?
        better name it))
        1. Observer2014 9 October 2019 20: 59 New
          • 6
          • 11
          -5
          Sandor Clegane (Danila Dmitrievich)
          whom?
          better name it))
          Everything. From f-15, Su-27, MiG-29 Tomcat F 14, f16 and ending with F-117 All of them exceeded it in their specifications. And F18 is flying wood. It was so versatile. What did everyone lose at that time to the aircraft according to their specifications.
          1. GibSoN 9 October 2019 21: 06 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Everything. From f-15, Su-27, MiG-29 Tomcat F 14, f16 and ending with F-117
            All of the above, can not fully replace the F-18 from the word at all! Is that except for the F-14, which for a number of reasons, including a very high accident rate and high cost, simply gave way to the F-18. Otherwise, it makes no sense to compare these aircraft. What they have in common is that they can fly and shoot.
            1. Observer2014 9 October 2019 21: 17 New
              • 4
              • 8
              -4
              GibSoN
              All of the above, can not fully replace the F-18 from the word at all! Is that except for the F-14, which for a number of reasons, including a very high accident rate and high cost, simply gave way to the F-18. Otherwise, it makes no sense to compare these aircraft. What they have in common is that they can fly and shoot.
              laughing wassat laughing What is best able to do F-18? At a maximum speed of 1900 km per hour laughing Afterburner wassat With maneuverability of a log with wings in comparison with the Mig 29 and Su 27 laughing..... And so on, so on.
              1. GibSoN 9 October 2019 21: 43 New
                • 12
                • 3
                +9
                laughing wassat laughing What was the best at F-18s? With a maximum speed of 1900 km per hour laughing On the aftersat wassat With maneuverability of logs with wings compared to the Mig 29 and Su 27 laughing ..... And so on and so forth.
                Well, yes, they are stupid .. Haha, they used a plane for 25+ years just like that if he doesn’t know how to brew coffee)))! 11 !!! Well, yes, really stupid))) 000)))
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Sentinel-vs 10 October 2019 06: 08 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                He was the best at knowing how to be a carrier-based multipurpose fighter-bomber. The rest of you listed could not do this. The American concept of the use of ACG needed such an aircraft and they got it.
              3. TARSUS 10 October 2019 16: 13 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Comrade, have you even finished school? And then by squeaks by squeals anyone can only, and not see the whole picture.
      3. Warrior2015 9 October 2019 21: 55 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Quote: Observer2014
        Why is it better? Speed? Invisibility? Thrust-to-weight ratio? Maneuverability? This is a clean mass unit of clean sky.

        Why are you doing this? Beautiful and efficient car. Let it belong to the camp of our geopolitical opponents.

        Remember when the SR-71 was decommissioned - it was also an amazing airplane.
  3. Nycomed 9 October 2019 20: 15 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    He served, but it’s too early to talk about complete “peace”. Canada and Spain still use them.
    1. novel66 9 October 2019 21: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      yes, they’ll give out to the allies ..
  4. Lexus 9 October 2019 20: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    I wonder what raid he has.
  5. Al_lexx 9 October 2019 21: 15 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    I wanted to write that the best deck, but already ripped off the tongue ... I will say more. Not only the best deck, but simply the best American multi-purpose, past generations.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi 9 October 2019 21: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Because there are no others like that. I mean, deck wagons.
      1. ALEXXX1983 10 October 2019 16: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And the super-top and f-35C - not deck wagons?
  6. mavrus 9 October 2019 21: 59 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Shurik70
    Americans love to "retire," and then "return to duty."
    The planes will probably not be sent to scrap metal, but to the "airplane cemetery." In the desert, where there is no rainfall and almost no storms. Ideal storage location.

    Or maybe someone will boast, but decent money ... Those who have no right to refuse.
    1. ltc35 9 October 2019 22: 09 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      They will give the brothers for decent money, like a state loan. Do not saw the same. Sorry. And also you can steal a grandmother on illiquid assets.
  7. Vitaly Tsymbal 9 October 2019 22: 06 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    And for some reason, I don’t feel sorry for the plane, but the pilot))) 31 years old, and he still goes to lieutenants, now he has to retrain on “super” ... so he’s “climbing his tongue”: lieutenant, you won’t be getting older !!! !)))
    1. Mytholog 9 October 2019 22: 51 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      With a high degree of probability in the original was lieutenant colonel - lieutenant colonel. Lieutenants in ritual flights are usually not attracted.
      1. Avior 9 October 2019 23: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In the English version of Lt. Andrew Jalali
        Looks like a lieutenant
      2. kit88 10 October 2019 00: 27 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        So this is the Navy. There the lieutenant colonel is not a lieutenant colonel, but a Commander.
        Yes, and their lieutenant is our lieutenant captain (land captain who is not in the know).
    2. voyaka uh 9 October 2019 23: 09 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Re-trained marine pilots on the F-35C.
      The formation of the second training squadron.
      They will be in the proportion 1/3 F-35C - 2/3 SuperHornet on all aircraft carriers.
      So all of their sea pilots will have to own both types
      airplanes.
  8. Pavel57 10 October 2019 00: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I remember Angels flew to Kubinka on F-18.
  9. Pete mitchell 10 October 2019 10: 49 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: ultra
    This best one in his time lost f16.
    Is it possible to confirm this with facts? It seems to me that you jumped a little in time in the sequence of events: what became F-16 won the competition with YF-17. And only later -17 from Nortop became F-18 from McDonald Douglas with the participation of Nortop.
    A good device in fact, well, let it bring down retirement ...