mattP: I know the Prowlers of VAQ-136 shoots HARMs from time to time. [:D] Just making sure of the Hornet deckload. [:)]
Iodni_k: I thought VF-154 was becoming VFA-154 also. Most Tomcat SQDN are transitioning over to the “Foxtrot”.
While I wouldn’t mind an A-10C, it is a shame that they don’t ‘move on’ and do an F/A-22 or F-35 instead.
Both are assured of being produced in ‘more than an SR-71’ numbers. So there is no likelihood of an F-20 mishap.
Both are much more representative of the U.S. SOA in aero engineering and thus something that will attract pride and envy sales from around the world. IMO, they are each /vastly/ more aesthetically appealing than any Bug ever will be.
All the more so because the existing releases (Italeri junk and Trumpeter/Panda copies of same) fail to -capture- the subtle blending of hard edged chines and body facets with the softer curves and changes in contour of the real jets.
This being easy to research as both jets (thanks to having passed CDR as well as being ‘stealth restrictive’) have outer moldlines fully hardened to a fully ‘production representative’ level. So that there would be no danger of (for instance) a YF-16, complete with the stepped LERX and small tails, becoming the ‘mistaken configuration that we can’t afford to fix’.
Regarding ordnance, and ‘vanilla’ appearances of internal carriage warplanes without them in ready visibility; it should be remembered that the F/A-22 has at least three different external stores configurations (X4 tanks, X2 tanks with active missile rails and X4 tanks with ferry load missile rails), while the F-35 will probably operate most of the time as an external carriage machine, just to accomodate the variety of airframes (A-10, F-16CJ, F-18C, AV-8B) it is supplanting for which the carriage volumetric and total numbers required of large munitions are a prerequisite (HARM, GBU-12, 70 and 127mm FFAR etc.) to mission accomplishment.
Lastly, while the F/A-22 will not change much, over time, (as indeed the F-15A/C has not) due to it’s principle ‘go fast’ Air Dominance mission; the F-35A->C has at least THREE reboxings ‘plus markings’ (UK/Italy/Denmark/Singapore). If RM made a mistake with the F-15E (and they actually made many) it was in failing to pull a Hobbycraft and rerelease the kit as a subsequent I/S or K model with unique ordnance, from the very start. IMO, the F-18E will be a similar ‘1-year wonder’ with limited continuing appeal, no matter how successful it is today. Sure, the F model will help, (if they are not restricted from making one due to the licensing battle I heard raged between them and Hasegawa at Boeings encouragement) but only a little as even combat-configured trainers are still just tubs.
Regarding the kit itself…
The lack of additional wing tanks is disturbing. The F/A-18E is critically short of range, just like it’s predecessor, even as one of it’s principle ‘secondary’ missions is in fact that of combat tanker to drag the Bug-C’s to the fight. Of course these are not as severe as with the F and there are separation problems with the inboards wing stations but it would have been nice to see RM ‘not forget’ (repeat) the mistake of their Hornet-A/C kits.
Separating the nose at the join line under the cockpit may remove the unsightly diagonal seam that ruined their earlier Hornets but I don’t see why it could not have done just as the old Italeri kit did, as a full length insert to accomodate BOTH cockpit options. Indeed, the Super Hornet has an advantage here in that the LEX slots for the inlet boundary bleeds have been replaced by vents further aft. The nose itself is a bit chunky, reminding me, unfortunately, of the Academy attempt to ‘F-15’ it in 72nd. It could just be opticals on the poor resolution screen shots but what is less obvious is the justification for /yet more/ seamwork in both the muzzle and gas screen ‘insert’ panel areas, top and bottom.
The selection of insertable panels for the fuselage sides bodes ill for the incredible MLG detail (just as it does on the Hasegawa kits, if you misplace glue). It also has the potential to jack the wing roots if the vertical alignment is off. And immediately complicates the installation and smoothing of the inlet/trunking which is what deserved, IMO, to be post buildup insertable subassemblies.
Given the lack of poseable fold options and the fixed LEF/TEF, the use of separate wingtips is an unusual choice but at least better than those of the F-15E which was practically ruined by this method. I hope we don’t see a progression of mold shift or sinkmarks. And that both the chordwise alignment and spanwise stiffness is such that the kit doesn’t get a bad case of the droopies or out-of-place dogteeth.
The ordnance looks somewhat primitive without being terribly /varied/. One of the principal advantages of the Hornet-E during OIF being that you could throw on a grab bag of different munitions including many Navy Unique ones like GBU-16 and GBU-32 along with dumb .82/.83 and HARMs. JDAMs and what looks to be some kind of AIR weapon just doesn’t give the same feel.
Better, more varied, A2G choices might have included:
GBU-12 (-the most- popular PGM for OBAS)
AGM-65E Laser Mav (optronics visible) AGM-65F I2R Mav (dull orange cover)
AGM-154 JSOW
ADM-141 TALD/ITALD
GBU-38 500lb JDAM on CVER
JCM twin rail Hellfire launchers (as many as 16 on a single jet!)
GBU-39 X8 on SMERs (admittedly not yet on the want list)
HSARM HARM replacement
AGM-158 JASSM (also not ‘official’ but SLAM is out now)
Even if they are not all appropriate, at least you wouldn’t be looking at an A-10 type situation whereby you have Vietnam ordnance (BLU-27’s and CBU-52) on a jet which never even served there.
I do appreciate the shift (at last!) to AIM-120C but I’m not sure what the rails are supposed to be as they don’t look like LAU-127 to me. Nor am I sure what is supposed to go on the fuselage station opposite the ASQ-228 if only two AMRAAM are available for the outboard pylons. Speaking of which, a .pdf file I read recently stated that these weapons were NOT carried here because the aero-acoustic loads were too high.
As an alternative, if they had included LAU-115 dual rail adaptors, we could have had a more ‘impressive’ alternative AAW mission loadout of say X5 AMRAAM, as the Super Hornet is a truck made into a fighter by it’s shot count and AESA. Though AIM-9M is still fairly common, AIM-9X is nice. Yet the lack of a couple pilots, ‘with or without JHMCS’ modern helmets and perhaps standing on a deployed boarding ladder is also a bit spares-box disappointing. It certainly would have helped give a ‘power on’ justification to the model’s lack of (bled down) deployed wing surfaces.
Any or all of the above, as separate sprues (‘updateable, transferrable or reboxed in a separate weapons kit’), would provide a more /sustainable/ kit interest in terms of having munitions which are both discretely different from those already on the marketin say the Hasegawa weapons sets. And more apt to be appropriate for a kit of an airframe with a 20+ year lifetime ahead of it.
Lastly, looking at the landing gear, I must admit that they have done a better job than their previous simplified F-18 gear (especially the MLG). But given the previous Hornet’s ‘stepped on’ (rear end low) appearance, I will still have to see the stance before I give a passing grade. The Ultra Bug is a lot taller on it’s gear.
Not a bad model by any means but certainly a complicated one (as all Hornets are, really) and as it’s of my least favorite modern jet, I’m at least glad that it comes in a price range I can afford.
KPl.
Wow…I WANT this kit!
Kurt,
[#welcome]!!! I think that’s by far one of the longest posts I’ve ever seen.[:D] Thanks for the great insight; what do you do for a living? From your post, you seem like an aeronautical engineer.[:)]
I just got mine today. Man it is so sweet you eyes will pop out of your head
I just got one at Hobby Lobby today. From my observation, it looks like a very good kit. I haven’t tried test fitting any thing yet.
Hey Bwog I got mine today and to be honest I think it just an outsanding kit and I cant wait to build it. I think I will use Two Bobs Top Hatter decals rather than the ones in the box. I got mine at Hobby Lobby so I cant wait until their next discount sale[8-]
Just got mine, 19.80$ CAD at udisco [8D]
Please forgive my ignorance but is the “F” variant coming out later from Hasegawa its own distinct set of tooling or is it in anyway derived from the current Revell “E” version?
And could someone please convince Revell to apply the same treatment to its old MiG-25 Foxbat model in 1:48 for us Soviet era collectors???
Both Hasegawa and Revel should be comming out with both E and F versions in time.
Hey Folks;
I was wondering if any of you read the new releases on Cybermodeler, they ran the NEW HASEGAWA F/A-18F, it looks like Revellogram and Hasegawa where working hand in hand on this kit because the sprues look the same, might want to check this one out
Actually, they look different. Hasegawa’s nozzels look bigger and the parts trees are set up differently.
Is this kit widely available now???
If so, I’d like to know(roughly) how much it is.
From looking at the sprues, it looks like it is well designed.
Looking forward to picking it up.
Jim, I think they had some at NATS, but I think the official wide release is any time. I have mine on preorder at Greatmodels for just shy of $50 American. Hobby Link Japan has it in stock right now, but I haven’t seen it this side of the pond just yet