Author Topic: Aviation Experts: Is F/A-18 worth the investment? (Read 1083 times)

Fishu · « **Reply #15 on:** November 29, 2006, 04:48:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
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.

F35 isn't stealthy enough though. F35 just can't be detected from ridiculous ranges. Once it's closer it is just as good target as F18. Besides that the radar technology will get better too. For any new weapon there'll be a counter weapon.

I'd rather have a mix of F35's and F18's than go solely with F35. There's no need for an expensive plane middle of nowhere, but you might still need a plane there - Cheaper planes will make it easier to effectively cover alot of less active areas.

Chairboy · « **Reply #16 on:** November 29, 2006, 05:10:42 PM »

Quote

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

That's obviously the smart thing to do. Notice, Pei didn't endorse the Blair plan and was remarkably diplomatic by not mentioning that.

If the Blair government retires the Harriers before a replacement is in hand (pardon the convoluted pun), it would be a remarkable lack of forsight and a demonstration of terrible judgement.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #17 on:** November 29, 2006, 07:42:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
I think Dick Cheney is best qualified to answer your question.

no...

Rumsfeild

Gunslinger · « **Reply #18 on:** November 29, 2006, 07:55:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
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.

Virgil,

The F35 comes in three models

The A, B, C

I can't remember which one is which so for the sake of argument:

F-35A Standard fighter, land based, normal take off
F-35B Naval version, alot like the "A" model but with reinforced struts for carrier service ect.
F-35C Marine SVTOL version.....and the ONLY one that is SVTOL

I agree with Eagl on this.....it is the best choice that they have NOW, in production NOW.

That says alot with today's R&D costs.

BlueJ1 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 29, 2006, 07:59:32 PM »

Military Channel. 9 PM EST. Anatomy of a FA-18.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** November 29, 2006, 08:01:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
F35 isn't stealthy enough though. F35 just can't be detected from ridiculous ranges. Once it's closer it is just as good target as F18. Besides that the radar technology will get better too. For any new weapon there'll be a counter weapon.

I'd rather have a mix of F35's and F18's than go solely with F35. There's no need for an expensive plane middle of nowhere, but you might still need a plane there - Cheaper planes will make it easier to effectively cover alot of less active areas.

Kinda like a modern day "Torpedo 8" scenario

Bring in the F-18, let the sam's hit them first, then bring in the F35's

firbal · « **Reply #21 on:** November 29, 2006, 08:20:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Virgil,

The F35 comes in three models

The A, B, C

I can't remember which one is which so for the sake of argument:

F-35A Standard fighter, land based, normal take off
F-35B Naval version, alot like the "A" model but with reinforced struts for carrier service ect.
F-35C Marine SVTOL version.....and the ONLY one that is SVTOL

I agree with Eagl on this.....it is the best choice that they have NOW, in production NOW.

That says alot with today's R&D costs.

The B model is the Vtol. The C is the Carrier verion.
The #1 F35 first flight is due Dec 11. I'll be out on the field to see it off. That's my retirement.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #22 on:** November 29, 2006, 08:21:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
no...

Rumsfeild

Well, dangit, close enough.

Dnil · « **Reply #23 on:** November 29, 2006, 11:07:29 PM »

the trail to follow is...why is the super hornet the only "next-gen" navy plane in production. Surely there was a flyoff to determine a suitable "next-gen" aircraft for the navy....naw there wasn't. But that will take you down stock options and who was on the boards. Maybe another time and place.

oh and the RAF is flying on RN carriers now, something with the sea harriers havent different wings.

Pei · « **Reply #24 on:** November 30, 2006, 12:21:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
That's obviously the smart thing to do. Notice, Pei didn't endorse the Blair plan and was remarkably diplomatic by not mentioning that.

If the Blair government retires the Harriers before a replacement is in hand (pardon the convoluted pun), it would be a remarkable lack of forsight and a demonstration of terrible judgement.

Already done:
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5142/changeNav/3533

The Blair government believes that SAM systems will provide all the air protection the Royal Navy needs for at least 6 years.

Note that the current government also has plans to "down-size" the Army and RAF as well, at the same time that the Armed Forces are stretched to breaking point with commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and various peace keeping operations around the world.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #25 on:** November 30, 2006, 02:16:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by firbal
The B model is the Vtol. The C is the Carrier verion.
The #1 F35 first flight is due Dec 11. I'll be out on the field to see it off. That's my retirement.

firbal,

You work at the bomber factory? If so, where? I work out there too.

Mark

indy007 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 30, 2006, 08:08:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
F35 isn't stealthy enough though. F35 just can't be detected from ridiculous ranges. Once it's closer it is just as good target as F18. Besides that the radar technology will get better too. For any new weapon there'll be a counter weapon.

I'd rather have a mix of F35's and F18's than go solely with F35. There's no need for an expensive plane middle of nowhere, but you might still need a plane there - Cheaper planes will make it easier to effectively cover alot of less active areas.

Nilsen · « **Reply #27 on:** November 30, 2006, 08:24:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Virgil,

The F35 comes in three models

The A, B, C

I can't remember which one is which so for the sake of argument:

F-35A Standard fighter, land based, normal take off
F-35B Naval version, alot like the "A" model but with reinforced struts for carrier service ect.
F-35C Marine SVTOL version.....and the ONLY one that is SVTOL

I agree with Eagl on this.....it is the best choice that they have NOW, in production NOW.

That says alot with today's R&D costs.

The marine version also lacks an internal gun and needs a pod if you want to bring one.

Vietnam lesson forgotten again?

Chairboy · « **Reply #28 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:37:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
The marine version also lacks an internal gun and needs a pod if you want to bring one.

Vietnam lesson forgotten again?

Possibly, I've been thinking about this, perhaps there's another approach. Perhaps any gun they could fit in the airframe would be of lesser ability than what will be mounted in the pod, and perhaps the pod will be part of a standard loadout.

indy007 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 30, 2006, 10:01:53 AM »

Well... Vietnam didn't exactly feature reliable missiles. Having to unload half your weapons in the faint hope of them tracking is a lot worse than taking a high Pk shot with an AIM-9X. Bombs are quite a bit more accurate now too.

I don't think it would be too terribly difficult for them to come up with a retractable gun-pod for the weapon bays. Just load it up when its time for CAS missions.