President Trump was at Boeing Friday and threw out a nibble that maybe the F18 Super Hornet might be in the mix for government contract.
Like to hear opinions from active Military, Veterans and civilians alike.
one of the things that I noticed about navy fighters is the decline in range. they went from 1200 - 1500 mile range without refueling in the `1960s . by 1970, this declined further to a rough 500 mile range. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormIt's not just the Navy ... the Israelis have the same issue.
good post excellent debateSome of these dreamers need to take a "ride" crammed down in the back on some sloshing gerry cans bumping around on the grass lumps trying to get up to air speed in an L-4 with shit every where to make the tree line up ahead in a drizzle overcast day to go home!Originally Posted by gary5912
It's not just the Navy ... the Israelis have the same issue. Originally Posted by LexusLoverI do not think this really applied to Israelis. they have fighters in the 1000+ range. but it does become an issue if they intend do operations against Iran.
I do not think this really applied to Israelis. they have fighters in the 1000+ range. but it does become an issue if they intend do operations against Iran.It is my understanding with respect to Iran the Israelis would have to discard their reserve fuel to carry the weapon systems to effectively strike the Iranian facilities and had requested from the Obaminable admistration "bunker busters" to soften the targets for a kill strike in a second wave attack, which would essentially be a suicide mission now that Iraq is no longer an option for setting down "dry" aircraft and in-flight refueling would be dicey at best unless the Iranian AND the Syrian aircraft could be neutralized on the ground before the initial strike. Now with the Russian presence ala Obaminable the mix is even more complicated and unworkable for the Israelis.
I see that they have F-35s in operation which are short legged. I guess that would be an issue. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
In the navy there is a trade off between range, payload, and durability. You can land a C 130 on an aircraft carrier but you can't operate from an aircraft carrier. F-35 have a problem with durability. In trying to create an all around fighter you have to cover the extremes. Bulking up the frame to handle cat launches and hook landings increases the weight of the aircraft and reduces either payload or range.I agree with JD 100 percent, price is an important issue- there are advantages and disadvantages to both planes, but the military needs to make sure they get the best bang for the buck.
Cost is important too. The last numbers that I saw were that one F-35 can pay for 2 1/2 F/A-18s. Would 1200 F/A-18s be more effective than 480 F-35s. Depends on what you have them doing. Hitler made the mistake of putting bombs on his jet fighters reducing their speed and endurance. From what I understand, for dogfighting using stealth capablilities the F-35 is superior. We want to hang smart bombs and task the planes for other things. The F/A-18 is pretty much the same as the F-35 in this case but at over twice the price!
Okay, do we have the manpower (or woman power) to man up all the aircraft? That is a great question in this reduced navy. How about replacing the losses? In the worst case scenario planes will be destroyed and pilots will be killed. Can we replace them quickly? In World War II, the Kaiser shipyard could complete a Liberty ship in eight days. Today, the lead time for new aircraft is months away.
Okay, manpower, cost, and capability. Right now the US does not have the manpower to man all those F/A-18s. It would take several months to build them and get them to the ship. Only in certain situations would the F-35 out perform the F/A-18 to any significant advantage.
I would forget the one size fits all philosophy and be prepared for different aircraft in the inventory. That requires support. We need to increase the fleet to 14 aircraft carriers again. They need to be fully manned with backup squadrons stateside to replace losses. The F/A-18 will continue to be the mainstay of the US navy for another decade but new aircraft should be brought on by squadron and not piece meal. The ships are also upping their game. In ten years we might be relying on armed, unmanned drones to defend this country. Aircraft carriers will carry more aircraft and it will be easier to outfit each drone aircraft for each specific mission. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
I agree with JD 100 percent, price is an important issue- there are advantages and disadvantages to both planes, but the military needs to make sure they get the best bang for the buck. Originally Posted by Luke_WyattI have to say: For a brain damaged lying POS who pretends to have been a drill sergeant in the Army and who spuriously brags about all the people he has killed (purportedly in the military as opposed to be s serial killer) your analysis of the comparative usefulness of these two aircraft and you extraordinary command of the tactical considerations in the selection of combat aircraft is quite stimulating and your announcement is equally interesting and "on point"! Thank you for your well reasoned and in depth contribution.