Three F/A-18s Lost in Eight Days — From the Red Sea to the Arctic

By
Share with your friends

In a troubling cluster of events, three F/A-18 Super Hornets have been lost in separate incidents within just over a week —two in operational accidents on USS Harry S. Truman and a crash of a Finnish “Legacy” Hornet in Lapland. These incidents are sparking renewed scrutiny of the aircraft’s operational reliability and broader questions about air operations aboard U.S. carriers. The F/A-18’s mishap rate remains higher than many newer or land-based aircraft.

On May 7, a Finnish Air Force F/A-18 Hornet crashed near Rovaniemi Airport in northern Finland. The pilot ejected safely. The cause remains under investigation, though no hostile activity was suspected.

Finnish Air Force Commander, Major General Timo Herranen, stated that the fighter jet crashed during a demonstration flight rehearsal.

“There were no people or structures at the crash site. The aircraft fuselage was on fire when rescue services arrived.”

The F/A-18 Hornet crashed into a Defence Forces construction zone and came to rest near the edge of a worksite related to the incoming F-35 fighter fleet. The site sustained only minor damage, and the incident will not affect the continuation of construction. At the time of the crash, a Nordic defence ministers’ meeting was underway in Rovaniemi, hosted by Finnish Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen.

Finland flies the original, lighter, land-based Hornet. The U.S. Navy operates the larger, more advanced, carrier-capable Super Hornet, which has suffered several accidents recently.

Finland’s Hornets – F/A-18C/D “Legacy Hornets”

  • Type: 4th-generation multirole fighter.
  • Variants used:
    • F/A-18C (single-seat)
    • F/A-18D (two-seat)
  • Delivered: Between 1995 and 2000.
  • Builder: Originally McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing).
  • Modifications: Finnish Hornets have been upgraded for enhanced avionics and ground attack roles, as they were originally delivered without full strike capability.
  • Usage: Land-based only (Finland has no aircraft carriers).
  • Combat capability: Strong for air policing and defensive missions, but aging.

The Finnish Air Force is set to begin replacing its Hornets with 64 new F-35 fighter jets starting in 2026, matching the original number of Hornets in service.

U.S. Navy Super Hornets – F/A-18E/F “Rhino”

  • Type: Heavily upgraded version of the original Hornet; larger, more powerful, and better suited for carrier operations.
  • Variants used:
    • F/A-18E (single-seat)
    • F/A-18F (two-seat)
  • Entered service: Early 2000s.
  • Key differences:
    • 25% larger airframe than the original Hornet.
    • More fuel capacity, giving it longer range.
    • More powerful engines (General Electric F414 vs. older F404s).
    • Upgraded avionics, radar, and weapons systems.
  • Designed for: Carrier-based operations, including catapult launches and arrested landings.
  • Nickname: “Rhino” (to distinguish it from legacy Hornets on carrier decks).
  • Operational use: Backbone of U.S. Navy carrier air wings; also adapted into EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

Three Super Hornets Lost on the Same Ship

On the same day as the Finnish Hornet crashed in Lapland, the pilot and weapons systems officer of a F/A-18 Super Hornet ejected after failing to catch the arresting wire during a carrier landing on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), resulting in an arrestment failure. The Super Hornet went overboard. Both pilots safely ejected and sustained only minor injuries.

In late April 2025, a Super Hornet rolled off the flight deck of the same vessel, USS Harry S. Truman, during a routine towing operation while parked in the hangar bay. It sank into the Red Sea, too. A sailor was injured in the incident.

On December 26, 2024, a Super Hornet assigned to USS Harry S. Truman was downed over the Red Sea—not by enemy fire, but by a U.S. missile cruiser. According to a statement from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the missile was launched from the USS Gettysburg, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser escorting the carrier. The jet, on a routine patrol, was mistaken for an inbound threat in what CENTCOM later described as “a catastrophic identification failure.” The pilot ejected and survived.

Together, these three U.S. Navy incidents represent a staggering financial loss. At an estimated $60 million per aircraft, the Navy has lost $180 million worth of fighter jets since December, without a single enemy engagement. The accidents highlight not only the high cost of naval aviation but also potential weaknesses in procedures, identification systems, and deck safety on aging carriers.

High-Tempo Flying and Risk

F/A-18C Hornet, assigned to the “Golden Dragons” of Strike Fighter Squadron One Nine Two (VFA-192), launching from the flight deck of the conventionally powered aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). (Image: U.S. Navy / Mate 3rd Class Jonathan Chandler)

First introduced in the late 1970s, the F/A-18 Hornet was designed as a multirole fighter and has since evolved into the Super Hornet variant, which remains a U.S. Navy mainstay. Over 2,000 Hornets and Super Hornets have been produced since the aircraft’s inception, serving with multiple allied air forces.

As of 2025, approximately 698 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been produced over a span of 30 years. Production began in the late 1990s, and Boeing plans to conclude manufacturing by 2027 following the delivery of the final batch to the U.S. Navy.

While the original F/A-18 Hornet has been widely adopted, the Super Hornet variant is currently operated by a select group of countries. The United States Navy is the primary and largest operator, with over 500 Super Hornets in service. Variants include both the single-seat F/A-18E and the two-seat F/A-18F. These aircraft serve as the backbone of the Navy’s carrier-based strike fighter fleet.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operates 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, acquired to replace the aging F-111 fleet. Additionally, the RAAF fields 12 EA-18G Growlers, the electronic warfare variant of the Super Hornet.

The Kuwait Air Force received 28 Super Hornets, 22 F/A-18Es, and 6 F/A-18Fs, as part of a defence deal approved in 2016. Deliveries were completed by September 2021.

While the aircraft is considered reliable, maintenance demands have increased as the fleet ages. In recent years, mishap rates have fluctuated. A 2018 Military Times investigation found a sharp rise in aviation mishaps across U.S. services, particularly among Super Hornets, which saw a 108% jump in accidents over five years.

The Super Hornet’s two engines give it an advantage in redundancy over single-engine fighters like the F-16, but carrier-based operations carry unique risks—tight quarters, complex launch systems, and split-second decisions under pressure.

Why the F/A-18 Still Struggles

The F/A-18’s mishap rate remains higher than many newer or land-based aircraft, including the F-35, despite early technical problems, and its Air Force counterparts. In recent years, Super Hornets have accounted for more than half of the Navy’s Class A aviation mishaps.

In 2022–2023 alone, of all US Navy fighter mishaps resulting in complete airframe loss, most involved the F/A-18E/F.

In contrast, the F-35 Lightning II fleet demonstrated a strong safety record in its early years. For instance, by 2017, the F-35 had surpassed 100,000 flight hours without a single Class A mishap, which includes incidents resulting in death, permanent disability, or aircraft destruction.

The F-22 Raptor has also maintained a relatively low mishap rate. While specific figures vary, analyses indicate that its Class A mishap rate remains below that of older fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 and F-16.

  • Aging Airframes: Many Super Hornets are over 15 years old. Structural fatigue and maintenance issues are recurring concerns, especially in high-salt maritime environments.
  • Operational Tempo: The F/A-18 is the Navy’s primary multirole jet. With over 700 Super Hornets and many legacy Hornets still flying, they carry the brunt of deployments, making mishaps more likely simply due to exposure.
  • Carrier Risks: Most F/A-18 mishaps involve carrier operations—takeoffs, landings, and taxiing accidents account for a disproportionate number of costly incidents.

The frequency and proximity of these three Super Hornet losses, all tied to the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, are now being examined by Pentagon analysts. While naval aviation is inherently risky, the clustering of events, especially with one being friendly fire, points to a need for deeper operational reviews.

For the Finnish Air Force, the crash near Rovaniemi is also a warning sign as it pushes older Hornets through the final years of their life cycle.

As investigations continue, both the U.S. and Finnish militaries face the same question: are these incidents isolated bad luck or signs of deeper systemic fatigue in aging fighter platforms?

Read More:

Must Read