F-35 Super Fight Plane

[John Adams]

I know jagall about this topic. So wait: Maybe gatorman is winning this debate. You tell him gatorman.

[DC Tom]

I know jagall about this topic. So wait: Maybe gatorman is winning this debate. You tell him gatorman.

 

!@#$.

[sherpa]

Missed that post, sorry.

 

The F/A-18 was significantly less effective, given that replaced the A-7, A-6, and F-4, all of which were far better suited to their missions - better loads, better range, the F-4 was faster, the A-7 was more maintainable. The F-18 had the A-7 and F-4 beat on avionics - maybe the A-6, too, but I'm not sure. And while avionics aren't trivial, they become so when you can't reach the target with a meaningful payload - having the best dual-mode synthetic aperture radar available in 2001 doesn't mean much if you can't reach Afghanistan. The F/A-18C was a light, maneuverable bird with short legs and a light payload that was unsuited to replace the aircraft it actually replaced.

 

I guess this is where we cordially part then Tom.

 

I flew the A7E for three years; two cruises. I then went to TopGun and served as an adversary fighting against pretty much everything you have mentioned, and have flown the F-18.

 

To claim that the F-18 is "significantly less effective" than those airplanes that you claim it replaced is a view I have never heard from the hundreds of people I've know over the years I served. Never heard a single person make such a claim.

 

F-18 vastly superior to the A7 in every single regard, except range, and we tank for that. Never participated in a single detachment, and there were scores, where the F-18 mission readiness did not exceed the A7, per your maintenance claim.

 

Your F-4 inclusion is a non player. The F-4 was not replaced by the F-18. It was long gone. You could have made a point about the F-18 not replacing the F-14's fleet air defense role, valid and arguable, but a decent trade given the invisible nature of a fleet threat.

 

But the F-4?

 

Please.

 

The A-6? Avionics be damned. The airplane was g limited for years and nowhere near a fight in fight out machine.

 

Good luck in your further discussions here, but know ye this:

 

Range is not everything, and with air superiority at sea, it can be easily handled.

 

With air supremacy inland, as we have enjoyed, it is a total non player, as has been demonstrated over the past three conflicts.

 

Not saying range is undesirable, just saying that claiming the F-18 is not a successful replacement for the airplanes you mentioned is not a valid point.

[Kevbeau]

Your F-4 inclusion is a non player. The F-4 was not replaced by the F-18. It was long gone.

 

They must have shared some time right? the 107th (albeit a Guard Unit) was still flying E's out of NF when the 18 was well into service.

 

I would expect the 18 to be a superior fighter, but it seems that the split here is on role fill....not which is the more advanced/capable fighter.

[DC Tom]

I guess this is where we cordially part then Tom.

 

I flew the A7E for three years; two cruises. I then went to TopGun and served as an adversary fighting against pretty much everything you have mentioned, and have flown the F-18.

 

To claim that the F-18 is "significantly less effective" than those airplanes that you claim it replaced is a view I have never heard from the hundreds of people I've know over the years I served. Never heard a single person make such a claim.

 

F-18 vastly superior to the A7 in every single regard, except range, and we tank for that. Never participated in a single detachment, and there were scores, where the F-18 mission readiness did not exceed the A7, per your maintenance claim.

 

Your F-4 inclusion is a non player. The F-4 was not replaced by the F-18. It was long gone. You could have made a point about the F-18 not replacing the F-14's fleet air defense role, valid and arguable, but a decent trade given the invisible nature of a fleet threat.

 

But the F-4?

 

Please.

 

The A-6? Avionics be damned. The airplane was g limited for years and nowhere near a fight in fight out machine.

 

Good luck in your further discussions here, but know ye this:

 

Range is not everything, and with air superiority at sea, it can be easily handled.

 

With air supremacy inland, as we have enjoyed, it is a total non player, as has been demonstrated over the past three conflicts.

 

Not saying range is undesirable, just saying that claiming the F-18 is not a successful replacement for the airplanes you mentioned is not a valid point.

 

Regarding the F-4, they were part of the USS Midway's group (as it couldn't handle the F-14), and were replaced by the F/A-18.

[sherpa]

Regarding the F-4, they were part of the USS Midway's group (as it couldn't handle the F-14), and were replaced by the F/A-18.

 

The Midway's deck was far too small too handle an F-14 squadron, but in a strategic sense, the F-18 did not replace the F-4.

The F-4 was gone from every US carrier ex Midway, and presented huge disadvantages. That's why Kitty Hawk and Nimitz were sent to the Indian Ocean after US Embassy in Tehran was seized.

There is simply no comparison between the capability of the F-18 and the F-4.

 

Regarding the F4, I will relate an experience that occurred when the F-18 was brand new.

 

It's first detachment away from its Lemoore California home base was in the very early 80's at Yuma. Good winter weather and the TACTS Range, (the range used for the movie TopGun).

 

Anyway, I was one of the adversaries going to fight it. The real mission was for the initial cadre of F-18 RAG, (RTU) instructors for Air Force guys, to come up with the air combat portion of what was to be the syllabus for new F-18 guys.

 

Anyway, the Sunday night prior to starting, we were in the O club going over schedules and operating area stuff and a Marine F-4 guy walks in. The Marines had their F-4 RAG at Yuma. Anyway, he comes over and starts indicating that he isn't a believer in the F-18 and blah blah blah.

 

So between the three of us guys doing a 9am sortie, we agree that I will fight the F-18 in the first two engagements , which are simple one v one setups, and going to be day two training for new guys.

 

At some point this Marine F-4 guy is going to show up.

 

The deal is made for two F-4 v F-18 engagements.

 

The first is a setup where the F-18 is in the lead, and the F-4 is 1000 feet dead six at the F-4's corner speed of 450kts. (For the uninitiated, corner speed is, basically, the indicated airspeed where the airplane can generated a maximum rate of turn or pitch change), in other words the sweet spot.

 

The second is going to be a line abreast set up at one mile at the F-18's corner of about 320 kts. Standard neutral setup..

 

So we do our thing and the F-4 shows up, and sets himself up at 1000' dead six.

 

3...2...1...go.

The F-18, in the lead, an ungodly bad position, goes to idle, pulls straight up. The F-4 starts up and overshoots badly. The F-18 in about 270 degrees of vertical turn, completely reverses the advantage and guns the F-4.

 

Second setup. One mile abeam, 320 kts.

 

3...2...1...go.

F-18 pulls inside as they both turn at each other Withing 90 degrees, the F-18 has already reversed and is starting a tracking solution on the F-4. By 150 degrees of turn the F-18 looks like a nicotine patch attached to the F-4's thigh..

 

End of exercise. F-4 goes home.

 

While we are debriefing our part at the TACTS range, the F-4 major shows up and simply states "I have no questions," then leaves.

Edited August 29, 2013 by sherpa

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Regarding the F-4, they were part of the USS Midway's group (as it couldn't handle the F-14), and were replaced by the F/A-18.

How about a nice game of chess?

 

[DC Tom]

The Midway's deck was far too small too handle an F-14 squadron, but in a strategic sense, the F-18 did not replace the F-4.

The F-4 was gone from every US carrier ex Midway, and presented huge disadvantages. That's why Kitty Hawk and Nimitz were sent to the Indian Ocean after US Embassy in Tehran was seized.

There is simply no comparison between the capability of the F-18 and the F-4.

 

Regarding the F4, I will relate an experience that occurred when the F-18 was brand new.

 

It's first detachment away from its Lemoore California home base was in the very early 80's at Yuma. Good winter weather and the TACTS Range, (the range used for the movie TopGun).

 

Anyway, I was one of the adversaries going to fight it. The real mission was for the initial cadre of F-18 RAG, (RTU) instructors for Air Force guys, to come up with the air combat portion of what was to be the syllabus for new F-18 guys.

 

Anyway, the Sunday night prior to starting, we were in the O club going over schedules and operating area stuff and a Marine F-4 guy walks in. The Marines had their F-4 RAG at Yuma. Anyway, he comes over and starts indicating that he isn't a believer in the F-18 and blah blah blah.

 

So between the three of us guys doing a 9am sortie, we agree that I will fight the F-18 in the first two engagements , which are simple one v one setups, and going to be day two training for new guys.

 

At some point this Marine F-4 guy is going to show up.

 

The deal is made for two F-4 v F-18 engagements.

 

The first is a setup where the F-18 is in the lead, and the F-4 is 1000 feet dead six at the F-4's corner speed of 450kts. (For the uninitiated, corner speed is, basically, the indicated airspeed where the airplane can generated a maximum rate of turn or pitch change), in other words the sweet spot.

 

The second is going to be a line abreast set up at one mile at the F-18's corner of about 320 kts. Standard neutral setup..

 

So we do our thing and the F-4 shows up, and sets himself up at 1000' dead six.

 

3...2...1...go.

The F-18, in the lead, an ungodly bad position, goes to idle, pulls straight up. The F-4 starts up and overshoots badly. The F-18 in about 270 degrees of vertical turn, completely reverses the advantage and guns the F-4.

 

Second setup. One mile abeam, 320 kts.

 

3...2...1...go.

F-18 pulls inside as they both turn at each other Withing 90 degrees, the F-18 has already reversed and is starting a tracking solution on the F-4. By 150 degrees of turn the F-18 looks like a nicotine patch attached to the F-4's thigh..

 

End of exercise. F-4 goes home.

 

While we are debriefing our part at the TACTS range, the F-4 major shows up and simply states "I have no questions," then leaves.

 

So the F-18 was superior to the F-4 in ACM (not surprising, since the F-4 was basically a lead sled)...a combat situation neither one of us can recall happening since 1981.

 

Great story, though.

[Tiberius]

Love to see how an attack goes down there. No way they would risk a pilot in this operation, why would they?? No reason to. Tom would problem send in A-10's though, lol. (JK)

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Love to see how an attack goes down there. No way they would risk a pilot in this operation, why would they?? No reason to. Tom would problem send in A-10's though, lol. (JK)

 

Realistically, what they will probably do is send a B-2 from whiteman AFB, refuel it over the ocean, drop about 8 JDAMs on insignificant targets, turn back home refuel again a time or two and RTB about 28 hours later and call it a day.

 

Plus a few tomahawks because they look really cool being fired from ships and make for good news clips.

 

So to your point, yes pilots will still be used.

Edited September 1, 2013 by drinkTHEkoolaid