Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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.
-
I think Dick Cheney is best qualified to answer your question.
-
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.
-
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!.
-
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
-
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 :t
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.
-
at least 3 GAO reports on the new hornet.....depressing to say the least.
-
Aviation Experts: Is F/A-18 worth the investment?
Yes, but I am bias.:aok
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?
-
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? ;)
-
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.
-
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 :t
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 :rolleyes:
-
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) ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
Why not keep the Sea Harrier operational until the JSF is ready? Those Harriers are barely 20 years old, if that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I think Dick Cheney is best qualified to answer your question.
no...
Rumsfeild ;)
-
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.
-
Military Channel. 9 PM EST. Anatomy of a FA-18.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
no...
Rumsfeild ;)
Well, dangit, close enough.
-
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.
-
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 (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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
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
-
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.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav-lm2.jpg)
:t
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
The vietnam thing might be a red herring for the real utility of guns: Unexpected requests for close support.
It's one thing to have a loadout for planned target runs, it's another thing to get a call from someone while you're on your way back (after delivering your packages) who needs help and not being able to do anything about it.
These days, I'd be less worried about dog fights than that. I flew with an pilot who was shot down in Vietnam. He ejected and parachuted next to a big group of vietcong. He said it looked like a swarm of ants converging on him as he was descending. Another american plane laid down fire behind him to slow them down. He's standing there in shock from the ejection, when someone grabs him by his shoulder and yanks him backwards. It takes a few seconds to realize he's just been pulled up into a Huey that was in the right place at the right time, he didn't even hear it approach because of his state of mind and the noise of the circling jet above that was delaying the enemy long enough for his extraction.
Now if that guy above hadn't had any ordnance left...
-
Adding a pod on the outside of the F35 kinda ruins the sleek stealthy look and makes it a larger "target".
From what ive hear from our F16 operating in Afghanistan the gun was very useful in scaring off attackers and individuals on the ground and dispersing crowds. hehe lets call it a good crowd control tool.
The other thing is that in so many situations you have ROE that forces you to get up close and look at what the other guy is, and a gun would be handy in close combat. Im sure that the fighter pilots would get abit upset if you removed their gun. Imagine lazs as a fighterpilot without his "sidearm" :p he would go ballistic on the designers of the aircraft and the government that ordered it long before he took a shot at the enemy. :p
-
This is the first I've heard about no gun on the Marine F35 and I work out there. Not to say I know all there is to know about it by any means. Where did you all get that information? I'm not doubting you, just curious.
-
That's been the story since the beginning. Here's the FAS page:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm
US Marine Corps
The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35.
-
last I heard the F35B was only replacing the Harriers (wich also don't have an internally mounted gun)
The Corps would be stupid to get rid of their fleet of F18s
-
(http://www.igromania.ru/articles/Direct_speech/105_CommandConquer/images/Orcas_hoverings.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's been the story since the beginning. Here's the FAS page:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm
Thanks Choirboy, I appreciate the link.
-
this thread needs this: -
http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/magic_f18_ride/index.cfm
-
Cool video, zooming in and around the clouds is great fun. Did the same thing once near the Tennessee/Mississippi border. Sadly it was in a Cessna 152 and I didn't get to land on a carrier afterwards. :cry Still it was great fun.
As for the F18. I think it will go down as a classic like the F16, P51 etc. Sure it's a compromise but it does the job perfectly well. I tend to think the stealth factor in the new generation of fighters is, perhaps a luxury rarely used. Recent history has shown that the very first thing that happens to the enemy's air defences is that it's shutdown by a combination of jamming and radiation missiles. Since the Vietnam war, to switch on a radar was to invite a missile onto your doorstep. In other less sophisticated wars like Afghanistan, what's needed is close in, close air support. Stealth is no use when the enemy can hear and see you. The fact that the A10 is still in service proves that. In fact the mere sight of an A10 in the vicinity often suppresses the enemy as evidenced in Iraq. No one want to look down the barrel of that gatling gun.
I think that may be the point of leaving off the internal gun on Marine F35's. You will only need it for CAS and for CAS you don't need stealth. The role of the gun in air combat is probably finished. In truth dogfighting with guns will be restricted to places like Aces High in the future.
There will always be a place for unstealthy, down in the dirt attack aircraft in the future. Maybe!