| Warthog Territory Forums http://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| F-4 vs. F-18 http://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2741 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | boomer [ 09 Mar 2003, 09:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Back when the Hornet project got started they were going to produce an F-18 AND an A-18, they eventually were able to combine the 2 roles before going into production, thanks to advancing avionics. What I am wondering is, what was the role for the F-18 variant supposed to be? What role was the F-4 performing at that time? The F-14 was solidly in place for fleet defence. Were the F-4 (and eventually the F-18) strickly for strike escort? Welcome Pave10, I'm a rotorcraft fan, but a civie all the way <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 09 Mar 2003, 12:29 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I THINK the F-18 was for battlefield air superiority and strike package escort, freeing the Toms for BARCAP/CARCAP duties. "We shall leave no man behind" |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 09 Mar 2003, 23:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
F-4's exclusively flew from the Midway class CV's.........F-18's replaced them asap. F-18 was always designed as the low end of a high cost, low cost strike fighter package...........The A-7 was becomming extrememly vulnerable, and had no A2A ability........The CVN's operated the F-14/A-6 maratime air superiority/medium strike package which was second to none, but exremely expensive..........The CV's were to go with F-18's, and utilize the USMC F-18 assets as a lower cost alternative and able to equip 15 CVBG's...........Navy could not afford to euip 15 CVBG's with F-14's and A-6's, and the smaller CV's could not launch F-14's..........Hence the F-18 was concieved. BTW...........back then durring the Cold War a CV had an aircrafty compliment of 90, not 50 that we see today. If your not having fun, your not doing it right! Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 09 2003 10:52 PM |
|
| Author: | luke [ 10 Mar 2003, 00:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>BTW...........back then durring the Cold War a CV had an aircrafty compliment of 90, not 50 that we see today<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Well, back during the cold war it took that many more airplanes. Hell, we can do with a few airplanes now what took us 10-12 years ago 30 aircraft. As far as carriers are concerned you can look at that huge advance in capabilities a couple of ways. 1 - You can get the same mission capability for less planes and less money. 2 - You can keep the higher number of planes and elect not to save money or allocate said money to other programs and just get WAY more capability. I guess it really depends on what you need. Here is a question chad...In my opinion the air force of today is a more capable fighting force than it was during the first gulf war. It is much smaller but can still do the same if not more amount of damage. Advances in aircraft offensive and defensive systems, better more realistic organization, new weapons have all played a part. We can hit high priority targets with WAY more accuracy with just a fraction of the resources it used to take. What about naval aviation? They are smaller as well and have some new weapons and weapons systems. Are they doing well or hurting? A lot of the variables are the same as in the air force but the way the navy works is just totally different. Interested to hear some opinions.... |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 10 Mar 2003, 14:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
thanks chad, I'd forgotten about the "lil carriers" prob with F-14. hmmm... was that something to do with the "pass by" clearance of the Toms and the bulkheads, or something else? "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 10 Mar 2003, 14:14 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I glanced into Gilcrest's book "Tomcat!" at Border's. I saw the swept-wing ATF concept that was presented to the Navy by LockMart-It looked fierce! Too bad, maybe another time. |
|
| Author: | buzz2182 [ 10 Mar 2003, 15:01 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Check out P. Gillcrest's book "Feet Wet".... I read it a while back, highly recommend it actually, alot of valuable info. Its kinda hard to find in regular book stores so go to amazon.com cheers! "TACAIR, the Air Force Version of Fast Food." |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 10 Mar 2003, 16:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Buzz, but I'll pass. Have enough books to finish readaing. The thing is that many analysts are saying that the last manned-aircraft ever built would be the JSF-so no navalized ATF. The rest will probably be unmanned aircraft. Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 10 2003 3:11 PM |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 10 Mar 2003, 16:13 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Luke, i agree completely about the USAF more with less argument, it's the same for the US Army too. However, in the case of the Navy they no longer have a dedicated medium attack bomber like the A-6, and will soon lose the F-14 too. Imagine a USAF ACC composed ENTIRELY of F-16 variants. "We shall leave no man behind" |
|
| Author: | buzz2182 [ 10 Mar 2003, 16:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
M21, once the JSF is in service won't the Navy be pretty mission-capable? The -18E/F might be equated to the F-15E (I personally think the F-15 is superior) in its capabilities... its a pretty good heavy attack aircraft, good avionics, still pretty manueverable, good engines ..... I agree though, MORE with less argument... beaurocracy = bs "TACAIR, we deliver, you eat dust" |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 10 Mar 2003, 17:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the F-18E/F is as flexiable as advertised, then I would agree completely with you Luke, and that being the case, when the JSF enters service the US Navy will be able to do more with less in terms of airframe numbers and lethality. The US Navy carrier airwing today is nowhere near the capability of its distant 1980's early 90's ancestor, not only does the Navy lack a real medium strike aircraft in viable numbers, (F-14's are becomming a non-renewable resource) but a organic tanking platform, and very limited EW aircraft. I read a statement by General Chuck Horner that goes something like this:.........Two B-2 Bombers can do today, what took 15 B-52's 2 Wild Weasel Airframes, two tankers, and a larger logidtical force. I believe that today the USAF can truly do more with less in terms of air power because of the advanced airframes and weapons systems they are upgradiing to, meanwhile the U.S. Navy is still in the tranistion process If your not having fun, your not doing it right! |
|
| Author: | buzz2182 [ 11 Mar 2003, 02:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed, the transition process will be rough, especially if we are at war. Yeah I heard that one too... the B-2 really emphasizes the concept of GLOBAL reach and power... just look at Kosovo in '99... great airplane. "TACAIR, we deliver, you eat dust" Edited by - buzz2182 on Mar 11 2003 01:34 AM |
|
| Author: | troung [ 26 Mar 2003, 22:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey I would take a Greek F-4E Icarus (APG-65, AIM-120B, IRIS-T) up agianist a Malay F/A-18D (AIM-7M, AIM-9L) or Kuwaiti F/A-18C/D (same)......... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|