While the original DNA of the Cobra is still visibly apparent in the F/A-18 if one knows where to look, the finished Hornet is a fundamentally different aircraft.
When Northrop’s YF-17 Cobra lost the US Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter competition to the General Dynamics YF-16, the Cobra appeared to be at the end of its rope. But although it lost the competition for which it was created, the Cobra found a new lease on life after the US Navy went searching for a multirole aircraft to replace its aging fleet of LTV A-7 Corsair IIs and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms. Though the Navy had not been involved in the Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter competition, Navy officials had been impressed with the Cobra’s agile performance during the trials, envisioning the aircraft as perhaps the Navy’s next multirole fighter.
Still, the Cobra had been built for land. To operate from the sea as a carrier-capable fighter, the Cobra required extensive overhauls to nearly every facet of its structure, systems, and mission profile—the end result of which would be the radically different F/A-18 Hornet.
The F/A-18 Hornet’s Specifications
- Year Introduced: 1983
- Number Built: ~1,480 (all variants)
- Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)
- Wingspan: 40 ft (12.3 m) with wings spread; ~27 ft (8.4 m) folded
- Weight: ~23,000 lb (10,400 kg) empty; ~51,900 lb (23,500 kg) max takeoff weight
- Engines: Two General Electric F404-GE-402 afterburning turbofans (~17,700 lbf thrust each with afterburner)
- Top Speed: Mach 1.8 (~1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) at altitude
- Range: ~1,250 nmi (2,300 km) ferry; ~400–500 nmi (740–930 km) combat radius depending on load
- Service Ceiling: ~50,000 ft (15,000 m)
- Loadout: 9 external hardpoints for up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, JDAM, unguided bombs, rockets, and drop tanks; one internal M61A1 20mm Vulcan cannon
- Aircrew: 1 (A/C models); 2 (B/D models for training/strike roles)
How the F/A-18 Hornet Was Adapted for Carrier Operations
The most fundamental difference between the original Cobra and the F/A-18 is the latter’s structural reinforcement. Carrier operations are punishing and unforgiving. Aircraft are forced to endure the pressures of repeated catapult launches, which slam the airframe from zero to takeoff speed in a few seconds. To land, aircraft essentially crash upon the deck, where the aircraft’s tail hook snags a cable, forcing a violent and abrupt stop. Land-based fighters simply would not survive the rigors of carrier operations.
Therefore, in converting the Cobra to carrier operations, its designers’ first priority was structural reinforcement. Accordingly, the landing gear was redesigned with robust, large wheels and struts that could absorb the shock of carrier traps. The fuselage was strengthened at critical stress points. And owing to the strict space requirements of carrier storage, the aircraft’s wings were fitted with a folding mechanism.
The F/A-18 also required naval-specific systems that were obviously not included on the Cobra—most notably its tail hook, which was mounted to the underside of the fuselage. Catapult launch hardware was also installed into the nose gear, allowing the jet to hook into the steam catapult shuttle for launch.
And because life at sea is so corrosive, with salt and wind, the F/A-18 was fitted with corrosion adaptations, such as anti-corrosion treatments, coatings, and material changes, to prevent rapid salt-related degradation.
Aerodynamic refinements were introduced, too, making the aircraft more stable and controllable in the demanding low-speed flight regimes necessary for carrier landings. Larger leading-edge extensions (LEX) were added to improve lift and maneuverability at high angles of attack. Also, the flight control system was adapted to provide better handling during final approach and arrest recovery, where precision becomes too crucial.
In the end, the F/A-18 was comprehensively reformed. And while the original DNA of the Cobra is still visibly apparent if one knows where to look, the finished F/A-18 was a fundamentally different aircraft. Given that the program was borne of failure, of the Air Force’s rejected Cobra platform, the F/A-18 has enjoyed a remarkable service life, becoming the backbone of both US Navy and Marine Corps aviation for decades, serving in every major conflict since the 1980s, with no retirement in sight.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer at The National Interest. Kass is an attorney and former political candidate who joined the US Air Force as a pilot trainee before being medically discharged. He focuses on military strategy, aerospace, and global security affairs. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global Journalism and International Relations from NYU.
Image: Shutterstock / Niko Stock.
