Author Topic: Aviation Experts: Is F/A-18 worth the investment? (Read 1033 times)

1K3 · « **on:** November 29, 2006, 12:03:00 AM »

Currently we are investing on 5th generation fighters. My keywords on the 5th generation fighters are advanced avionics/weapons systems and very low obsevability like the F-22 (difficult to track on radar?). I think F/A-18 is a 4.5 generation because the radar cross section is not on par with the F-22 or F-35.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2006, 12:18:55 AM »

I think Dick Cheney is best qualified to answer your question.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2006, 12:21:02 AM »

Well, the F/A 18 has a somewhat different mission than the other two. The F-22 is probably not a good (or at least first) choice for that mission (fleet defense for the Navy, and close air support and such for the Navy and Marines, and for the Navy, carrier duty), but maybe the F-35 Lightning II JSF can handle all of that, including carrier duty. I haven't seen anything about the F-35 being designed fo carrier duty.

Nilsen · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2006, 12:29:29 AM »

The plane is worth it for sure. There are several reasons for that.

The new F18 works off carriers and is _operational_ compared to the F35 that still is not operational.

The F18 carries more payload and comes in an EW variant. The F35 does not.

The F18 has two engines, and that is a big pluss when flying from carriers.

The F18 is not as stealthy as the F35, but with the kind of targets the US mostly goes after that is not needed.

The F18 is as far as i can tell a better fighter as soon as you get within visual range of your counterpart. Most modern conflicts have had rules of engagement that limits the use of BWR weapons.

Whenever the F35 becomes operational it will be better at one thing, and that is deep strike missions but in most other respects the F18 is a more capable allround plane.

COST!.

eagl · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2006, 04:53:52 AM »

The F-18 is a very capable plane and is IMHO a "good buy" at this point, for a couple reasons.

1. The navy needs a fighter right NOW
2. The F-18 is a very capable plane in production NOW

indy007 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2006, 09:34:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
The plane is worth it for sure. There are several reasons for that.

The new F18 works off carriers and is _operational_ compared to the F35 that still is not operational.

The F18 carries more payload and comes in an EW variant. The F35 does not.

The F18 has two engines, and that is a big pluss when flying from carriers.

The F18 is not as stealthy as the F35, but with the kind of targets the US mostly goes after that is not needed.

The F18 is as far as i can tell a better fighter as soon as you get within visual range of your counterpart. Most modern conflicts have had rules of engagement that limits the use of BWR weapons.

Whenever the F35 becomes operational it will be better at one thing, and that is deep strike missions but in most other respects the F18 is a more capable allround plane.

COST!.

F-35 production has already started actually. It does have quite a few advantages native in all 3 models that the F-18 needs separate versions of. Integrated ELINT antennas on the spine & the uplink keep a continuously updated picture of the battlefield. Multiple integrated cameras, the spiffy new helmet HUD, and if your entire strike package is stealth, you don't need EW escorts (they'd just give away your position). Better part commonality & simpler logistics.

could still use a second engine though

F-18 is the best choice for right now, but I think the F-35 will be a worthy replacement... until our massive CV's are replaced with autonomous barges packed with navalized UCAVs.

Dnil · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2006, 11:32:21 AM »

at least 3 GAO reports on the new hornet.....depressing to say the least.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2006, 11:55:25 AM »

Aviation Experts: Is F/A-18 worth the investment?

Yes, but I am bias.

Ask yourself this...was the B-52 worth the investment for 40 years? Did you know that there is not an original rivet on the existing B-52?

Nilsen · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2006, 12:51:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did you know that there is not an original rivet on the existing B-52?

Any original rivets in your old nugget anymore? Abbout the same age isnt it?

BlkKnit · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2006, 01:13:38 PM »

I was in 314th Marine Fighter / Attack Squadron (Black Knights - yes, same as in Independance Day) as a mechanic: airframes. We were the first combat squadron to recieve the F/A18A (323 was first one operational: for some odd reason we had to wait for them). The Hornet has been maligned over the years as being less capable than the F14, F15 and F16. It was, in fact, not as good as the F16, F15 and F14 in their particular roles, but was much better at its role: Fighter/Attack.

They used to say that in older attack aircraft you would pickle ord and then get shot down if the enemy fighters caught you, but with the Hornet you could shoot them down and go take out the target.

As a mid alt dogfighter and close support aircraft it is not inferior, and its carrier ready.

Whats the price these days? Was supposed to be $40 mil back in '82 - '86.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2006, 01:16:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
F-35 production has already started actually. It does have quite a few advantages native in all 3 models that the F-18 needs separate versions of. Integrated ELINT antennas on the spine & the uplink keep a continuously updated picture of the battlefield. Multiple integrated cameras, the spiffy new helmet HUD, and if your entire strike package is stealth, you don't need EW escorts (they'd just give away your position). Better part commonality & simpler logistics.

could still use a second engine though

F-18 is the best choice for right now, but I think the F-35 will be a worthy replacement... until our massive CV's are replaced with autonomous barges packed with navalized UCAVs.

Kinda funny, the knock against the F18 used to be that it tried to fill too many roles with a single airframe. Now it doesn't fill enough

Viking · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2006, 01:46:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did you know that there is not an original rivet on the existing B-52?

Why, did they all fall off?

(J/K)

Chairboy · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2006, 03:34:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Why, did they (rivets) all fall off?

(J/K)

My understanding is that after rumbling down the runway in the morning one after a cold night (when the wheels are squared on the bottom) and that might not seem like much of a stretch.

BUMP-BUMP-BUMP-BUMP-BUMP-BUMP-BUMP-BUMP

Pei · « **Reply #13 on:** November 29, 2006, 04:14:15 PM »

The alternative is to do what the Blair government has done for the Royal Navy: retire the current carrier capable fighter (the Sea Harrier) in favour of waiting for the new JSF/Fleet Carrier combination currently due around 2012. The Royal Navy will have no fleet defence capability whatsoever for 6 years if (and that's a huge if) the JSF and new carriers arrive on time. More likely it will be over 10 years, if one or the other don't get cancelled.

Viking · « **Reply #14 on:** November 29, 2006, 04:38:26 PM »

Why not keep the Sea Harrier operational until the JSF is ready? Those Harriers are barely 20 years old, if that.