Talk:Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/Archive 1

message: The U.S. Navy is working on replacing its EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare platform with an F/A-18F aircraft modified to carry the Prowler's jammer pods.  Aerodyamic compatibility tests have been completed at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, California, and work on the aircraft modifications, including RF receivers, mission computers, and communications cabling, continues.  --MWS 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
:Fine. We already mention it here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started an article for the Growler at Talk:EA-18 Growler. Any assistance would be welcome, especially if you have a photo of the actual aircraft. Thanks. --BillCJ 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA-18G "Growler" 

message: haha, ok, who's the joker that put the max speed at mach 2.5?
even an official website (http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/superhornet/superhornet.html) only claims mach 1.8+
NOTHING on the web supports M2.5
the superbug MIGHT hit M2.5 . . . if it's in a dive . . . while firing JATO units
: I've seen hud tape showing over 2.2 with a relatively clean bird in a shallow dive.  I bet a totally clean Blue Angel (glossy paint) in a steeper dive could do 2.5.  Then again, a combat loaded 18 probably can't do 1.8 straight and level.  --JJLatWiki 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  max speed 

message: 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 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

message: Why am I not allowed to add an image of a Super Bug from VFA-115?
:Feel free to add a new image if it's proper sourced and licensed. Please check Commons first, maybe there's already an image for your purpose. --Denniss 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Ok folks, where do these go??
SUPER HORNET NICKNAMES
15th June 2004, 02:34
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PkOaZlX-nOcJ:forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php%3Ft-27005.html+kress+tomcat+hornet&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a
AFAIF F-14 will be kept till 2008 before it is replaced by all Sewer Hornets
Super Borenet anyone?
Be the best damn tanker in the fleet too someday... well the only tanker anyway.
I bet the Subpar Hornet is better than the 1950's F3D-2 :)
--matador300 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More nicknames 

message: Does anyone have a public domain photo of the 'EA-18G Growler that we can use? Thanks. -- BillCJ 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that work?  Found unattributed on a US Congressman's web page.  --JJLatWiki 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of EA-18G

message: The article sez:
"The U.S. Navy's F-14 squadrons have converted to the Super Hornet, which is also taking on the missions of the retired A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D." (emphasis mine)
...so are they going to start hanging Mark 50s on Super Bugs? - Aerobird 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, S-3s have not performed ASW missions for awhile now. That was taken over completely by the SH-60s several years ago. - BillCJ 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Since 1998, when the S-3B Viking Community changed its primary mission from ASW to surface warfare operations..." Mark 50's barely made it out of testing in the '90s, I'm not sure if they ever reached full operational capability.  The APS-137 ISAR that the S-3 carries sounds pretty impressive, I don't know how that compares to the Super Hornet's radar in surface search mode. Certainly all of the previously discussed range and pilot workload issues would apply. --Dual Freq 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks folks, guess I need to catch up a bit. ;-) Seems rather dumb to rely soley on rotary-wing ASW, but... - Aerobird 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are right as for Shrike (some Shrike propulsions were used for AGM-123A Skipper rocket-propelled guided bombs, but those were also retired IIRC) and Walleye (even the newest ER/DL version must have been retired, though some guidance pod remains in use for AGM-84E SLAM). But not as far as we talk about Sparrow. I've seen some official Navy photos of Super Hornets (VFA-2 birds among them) carrying AIM-7. I cannot be sure if this is the live version or only a training one, but certainly they were seen on F/A-18E/F. Jacek Z. Poland 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking about Mk 77 fire bombs, I would be careful. Nowadays, when the "Blue Ops" days are gone, USN and USMC Hornets tend to share the same mission profiles more often, e.g. FAC(A) may be performed by either USMC F/A-18Ds or USN F/A-18Fs. So when we speak about the real ops, Mk 77 might also be used on F/A-18E/F. The main barriers to use such weapons today are humanitarian, but they could be used for instance for destroying minefields, or to achieve specific psychological effects on enemy troops. Jacek Z. Poland 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, if a reliable source can be found that says the Super Hornet will be taking on the missions of the retired Presidential Limosines (ok, maybe more than one reliable source for that one), it could be included.  If the source included the Viking missions but you think it's unlikely that they meant ASW, maybe you should try note that Vikings once performed missions for ASW, surface warfare, and ferrying animals for the shipboard zoo, but as of date, Vikings performed only the surface warfare role, so it's unclear exactly what missions once carried out by the Viking will now be done by the Super Hornet.  I think the same is true for any particular munition. If a reliable source says the Super Hornet can carry the GBU-43, it could be included.  Conversely, if an editor says it without citation, another editor should be supported for removing it.  --JJLatWiki 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munitions capability 

message: I wonder why VFA-15 Valions is still on the future Super Hornet squadrons list. Wasn't it replaced in the transition plans by VFA-136 Knighthawks? Also, I've seen an interview on the official Navy site, where VFA-147 Argonauts transition to F/A-18E was referred to as "imminent". Could anybody put some light on this subject? Jacek Z. Poland 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A-18E/F Operators 

message: From Donald, David: Warplanes of the Fleet, pages 50-51. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. . Article by Brad Elward. The book is a reprint of articles in World Air Power Journal and International Air Power Review (exact issues not mentioned in the book).
So, while not a "stealth" aircraft per se, the RCS HAS been reduced greatly over that of the F/A-18C/D. I hope this source suffices to settle the issue. - BillCJ 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, that's great! Now, that should just be referenced in the article. I cleaned up some of the quote, hope you don't' mind. Thanks!--Jonashart 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * I just added that reference. -Fnlayson 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Definitely better. Thanks to all for entertaining the discussion.--Jonashart 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My source

message: What was the problem with this EA-18G image: :Image:Cobrachen Ea-18g.jpg ?  It was removed without any explaination.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mouse was faster than my keyboard. I've removed photo because there is very little text in Growler section and any image posted there will exceed line generated by the next header. We have separate article and this photo is posted there so there is no real loss. Piotr Mikołajski 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Figured there was a reason.  I don't see the problem with the next section header.  It wasn't causing any white space in that section when viewed in Firefox & IE.  But it doesn't add much.  If the article was short on images, I'd say keep it but that's not the case. -Fnlayson 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Concur. Wasn't the world's greatest image anyway! - BillCJ 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Personally I'm damn sure we get a bunch of new excellent photos as soon as EF-18G became fully operational. US Navy website has thousands of photos. Piotr Mikołajski 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * There's some images of it on http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/.  But currently nothing we'd want to use. :(   -Fnlayson 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EA-18G image removal

message: I don't quite understand how someone can say there was no Super Hornet prototype as stated in this article .  MDC built a handful of pre-production Super Hornets for flight testing before low rate production started.  Are these not considered prototypes?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the superhornet "prototypes" were actually converted hornets. Is that posible? Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Not possible with the size difference.  A lot of the avionics systems were shared with the C/D Hornets though.  They built pre-production Super Hornets for testing. -Fnlayson 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prototypes? 

message: Need to get some opinions from naval aviation experts. It is my opinion that the comparable aircraft list should be changed. Only current/recent multi-role carrier capable aircraft
should be listed. Example: The F-15 should not be on the list as it can not perform carrier aircraft operations. Also the specific naval carrier versions of the MiG-29 and SU-3x should be listed, not just the generic family name. ELPusa 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MiG-29 should be removed as it's half the size of the Super Hornet. --Dual Freq 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue should probably be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, as it concerns more aircraft than just the Super Hornet. Until now, the pattern has been to included carrier- and non-carrier-capable aircraft in the same lists, and you would need to get a consesnus from the Project to change it. - BillCJ 17:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Some specific guidelines would really help. -Fnlayson 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand wanting to add in the MiG-29, but the other types should not have been taken out when the consensus here was against it. Again, the pattern in Aircraft articles has been not to differentiate between carrier-based and non-carrier aircraft. If you would like to get this changed, please go the the WP:AIR talk pages, and discuss it there. Wikipedia is goverend by consensus, and you wwere asked to discuss changes before implementing them. If you did not know where to go to discuss this, you could have asked. But changing it unilaterally is not the way to go here. - BillCJ 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, I should have left the MiG-29 link in there.  I'll add that back. -Fnlayson 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MiG-29 is comparable to the F-16 and F/A-18, but not very comparable to the super hornet. Carrier capability doesn't equal comparability. The numerous aircraft are carrier capable too, but not comparable in size. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Related_content has a brief description of comparable. I would say the MiG-29 fails era and capability. --Dual Freq 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * I can agree with that.  But size isn't mentioned on that page.  Similar size should probably be added. -Fnlayson 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In addtition, the F/A-18C/D is still in US naval service. That would be the place to list the MiG-29 carrier variant (and the Rafael M), not here. - BillCJ 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Aircraft 

message: Could we get an image of the single seat version? If it's not too much trouble.
RaptorR3d 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E model image 

message: Here's some image links on DVIC (dodmedia.osd.mil)
F/A-18E in flight over desert 
F/A-18E landing on carrier, front left view 
F/A-18E landing on carrier, front right view
F/A-18E launching from carrier, right side view
Which seems like the best to you?  I like the desert one, but it has a shadow.  The last landing image is good too, I think.  I can upload the one picked and so forth. -Fnlayson 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-flight Infobox image 

message: I'm aware that there's a game that goes by this name... should I write it or it is not worth the mention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A-18 Super Hornet Gold game? 

message: um........ i think thats AUSTRIA!!! ill change it now....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.180.9 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that this editor has numerous vandalism warnings on their talk page... --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australai??? 

message: Earlier this month (February) F/A-18s from Nimitz intercepted an Tu-95. On the pictures released you can clearly see that on the first pic that's a two seater (F/A-18F/VFA-41) and on the other pic the distinct fuselage of an Super Hornet. So atleast one Super Hornet was involved.
Here are the pictures and you need to see the Hi-res version of it. Can we use this as a source (for operational history) that at least one Super Hornet (VFA-41) was involved in the interception?
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55192
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55193  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagman1983 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A-18 Intercept Tu-95 

message: I updated and shortened the section about offering of F/A-18E/F for Denmark's fighter competition and added references.  Renamed it "Potential operators" as well. I partially think early discussions such as these should not be mentioned in the article as they are minor.  If they turn in a proposal for it, that seems OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both citations are 6 weeks old. We should be able to find some updated info on the Danish proposal at least. - BillCJ (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bids 

message: Kopp is not a really good reference! I see re-entrant triangles at the Rafale. 
Or what Journal of Electronic Defence wrote: "Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials, Dassault engineers have said. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM." So nothing unusual.--90.186.9.86 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a reliable reference  for the Radar signature reduction. 20 db lower as the Hornet, that is the factor 100!  --HDP (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Cool.  There's a couple book references and articles in use here.  One difficult thing is shielding the front fan blades from radar waves. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nope.  That part is clearly footnoted to book "Donald, David. "Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet", Warplanes of the Fleet. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ", not Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radar Signature Reduction

message: I had this question after seeing this in the F-15E Strike Eagle article:
Unlike earlier two-place jets (like the F-4 Phantom II and Navy's F-14 Tomcat), whose "backseater" lacked flying controls, the back seat of the F-15E cockpit is equipped with its own stick and throttle so the WSO can take over flying if necessary, albeit with reduced visibility.
Can the backseater on a F-18 take flight controls as well? I've also asked this question at Talk:F/A-18 Hornet. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer's on the C/D page. E2a2j (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backseater controls 

message: This aircraft, regardless of what the Navy says, is NOT taking off.  There is no angle on the flight deck (or off the carrier, for that matter) that you can take a picture of an aircraft several feet off the deck that is taking off.  If you look in the lower right corner, the fresnel lense is visable.  Aircraft launching from Cats 3 & 4 (the "waist catapults") are shot off the angle.  They are not airborne until they reach the end of the deck, and then they are over water.  This aircraft is in the landing configuration - flaps down, with the hook up.  Having the hook up is absolutely routine for a "touch and go" landing.  Happens all the time.  Take off configuration is flaps at half.  From the position of this aircraft, I'd guess that he was on approach, then waved off by the LSOs "in close" to the flight deck.  He likely never touched down, because an aircraft that touches down is typically on the deck abeam the lense.  This might be a "long bolter", wherein the aircraft touches down very long beyond the wires.  Why was the official Navy caption wrong?  Easy - they are typically written by junior enlisted Sailor journalist and edited by more senior Sailors, neither of which has been trained to interpret a single photo among hundreds that they're choosing from. E2a2j (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought landing at first and that's why the image file is named that way.  I was not sure enough to counter the Navy's description.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: My bust on the full flaps vs half flaps - all my boat experience is in legacy Hornet, which is 1/2F for cat launch.  Regarding the toe-in: according to NATOPS, toe-in "is used to improve longitudinal stability and to aid aircraft rotation during takeoff or bolter.  Rudder toe-in is a function of AOA."  pg I-2-62.  In this case substitute touch & go or low approach for bolter - same flight control configuration. E2a2j (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead photo caption

message: i suggest a re-evaluation of the critics to the shornet purchase, retired officers with uninformed out of the loop views wanting to keep the f111 and journalistic political point scoring shouldnt be a part of this page
i added the Capability Scores to the main page which also shows how silly the criticisms were
At 2004 the capacity score using JSF = 1
F/A-18E/F Block ll = .660
F/A-18E/F Block l = .316
F/A-18A+/C/D = .193
F-14D = .195
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.27 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As this article is about the F-18 most of this really relates to Australian procurement policy and war planning. It can be simplified but needs to be more balanced. Some people thing the F-18 cant replace the F-111 v the F-111 is old and has a high maintenance cost and cant wait till the F-35. The futher sales is pure speculation and is not needed. Can the F-18 meet the Australian war plan? It also doesnt take in consideration the moves to convert them to EA-18s - a different role in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You make a good point.  The last paragraph above seems to repeat the same arguments from previous paragraphs.  I removed the 2nd and 3rd sentences.  Maybe some of that needs to go back summarized? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Australian Air Force 

message: i added the capacity score to the main page which also shows how silly the criticisms were
At 2004 the capacity score using JSF = 1 
F/A-18E/F Block ll = .660
F/A-18E/F Block l = .316
F/A-18A+/C/D = .193
F-14D = .195  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.80 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me for being dense, but what the hicky-boo is a "capacity score"? Also, the link used in the article for this info is dead. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Given that the source link is dead, I've removed the info as uncited and unclear. Please establish a consensus here to re-add the info. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Looks like a typo for capability score if you read the document it is only mentioned once in a table about capability scores. Apart from that it is completely meaningless in the context of this article. All it says is each variant of F-18 gets better. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capacity score?

message: That is the exact quote from the guy whose job it is to be the top impartial expert on the subject for the United States Congress.  If you will not use his term I see nothing else from his article that directly applies to the introduction paragraph.  The ref could be used further down the page in the United States Navy section for insite into the tradeoffs between SLEP and buy, but it just wouldn't fit were it sits now. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But why link to a 4.5 generation fighter section and not a 5th generation section or article if it is close? Nevermind. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near Fifth Generation 

message: One F/A-18A refueling another: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/AAR/HTML/EC03-0293-03.html Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-super Hornet tankers 

message: http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html
"The hybird design provides equally good receiver sensitivity to Western AESA designs"
Can you point to one actually reliable source that believes this garbage?  Until AAP cleans up their work I strongly advise not using them as a source for anything. Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot Air Australia 

message: "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility."
So can we remove all links to this site because the Super Hornet is clearly only 4.5 generation?
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm
Hcobb (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, we can't claim Boeing is not a reliable source based on their use of a vague marketing term. Btw, the term "5th generation" does not appear on that page. Did you add the wrong link, or are you referring to one of the PDFs? - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That quote is from where exactly?  The Boeing page does not mention anything about generations.  The SH backgrounder pdf linked on that page only mentions 'next generation'.  -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Even so, that's still just their definition of a marketing term vs. your own definition. Companies are generally reliable in the publishing of their specs and other data, and the use of terms in page descriptions is no reason to disqualify all of a company's info. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: If you seriously want to challenge the reliability of this or any other source, the best place to do that is either at one of the relevant project talk pages (WT:MILHIST or WT:AIR in this case), or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer to the original question would be "no". Boeing can call the Super Bug the purple people eater if they want to, but the specs are the specs. One presumes a manufacturer knows about the product they're selling (especially since they'd get sued if they misrepresented it)! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another unreliable source

message: While it might seem desirable to use those lovely pre-prepared templates with linked country icons, the 'United States' and 'Australia' are so well-known in the anglophone world. I feel such linking is totally unnecessary in circumstances, WP:REPEATLINK notwithstanding. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines can be overridden by consensus on individual articles. It looks like this one is going against you. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, local consensus needs to be established only where there is freedom under the policies or guidelines. It does not override the global consensus. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines aren't policies, global consensus or not. They do not have to be followed, and your approval isn't required to form a consesnus. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It is open to interpretation how common these links are; US probably, but Australia is less so.  Anyway the links should be modified/removed where they originate - in the flag template, not in individual articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, the overlinking guideline is there for good reasons: wikilinking is not served well when low-value links are included. English-speakers are expected to be familiar with "UK", "US", "Australia", etc. The suspicion is that readers click on precious few links anyway, so part of the service we offer them is to funnel them towards the high-value links. This way, they are probably more likely to click on a link. Tony (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove the links from the flag templates so that the change is instant, compared to going around changing every article one by one. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OVERLINK|Overlinking]] 

message: From the Radar Reduction section of this Article: 
"Survivability is an important feature of the Super Hornet design. The US Navy took a "balanced approach" to survivability in its design.[25] This means that it does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and crew."
From the Radar Reduction section of the MiG-29K Article:
"Survivability is an important feature of the MiG-29K design. It does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and pilot."
Who copied and pasted?
Victory in Germany (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably copied from this article as it is much older.  The -29K article is a little over a year old.  Text can be copied from one article to another.  But the MiG-29K text needs to be referenced if that's true for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who copied and pasted?