• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Navy to Dispense With Almost 140 F/A-18 Fighter Jets

The U.S. needs F-35's only this fighters in 2030 in service.
 
Redress said:
Late 70's, and yes, kinda sorta, with new aircraft. We where the ones who where discovering the flaws that would be corrected in later versions(hello, Kapton wiring). The early lots of a combat aircraft, especially ones that take off and land on carriers, are not that long lived.
Click to expand...

Controlled crashes tend to do that to the very best of designs.
 
One said:
The U.S. needs F-35's only this fighters in 2030 in service.
Click to expand...

What??

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
It is plans for over 2300 fighters F-35 in 2035 it's better with under 2000 jets in year 2030.
 
We've mastered changing the font, syntax, coherency and sentence structure can't be far behind? :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
The F-18s SUCK, hardcore, to keep flying after they pass a certain age. When I got to my squadron, they had the last lot 7 F-18s, and we ran 12 hour shifts 7 days a week onshore(which is really rare), and still where fighting a losing battle. 2 to 3 where down longterm simply to supply parts for the rest(Canni birds we called them), and of the remaining 8, we were lucky if 6 where up and ready to fly at any particular time.

Edit: we eventually got lot 13's(the C version), and life got oh so much better. From the oldest 18's in the fleet, to the newest.
Click to expand...






QUOTE ----


The omnibus spending bill would add an extra 143 aircraft for the military

By: Valerie Insinna    6 days ago





"F/A-18E/F Super Hornet"



"In its FY18 budget request, the Navy requested 14 new Super Hornet aircraft. Lawmakers, who have long been supportive of the program, added 10 aircraft on top of that, funding a total of 24 new F/A-18E/Fs."



"Those extra fighters will help Boeing extend the life of its production line and ameliorate the loss of a deal with Canada for 18 Super Hornets, which failed last year due to a trade dispute."







https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...d-add-an-extra-143-aircraft-for-the-military/







Major Lambda
 
Redress said:
The F-18s SUCK, hardcore, to keep flying after they pass a certain age. When I got to my squadron, they had the last lot 7 F-18s, and we ran 12 hour shifts 7 days a week onshore(which is really rare), and still where fighting a losing battle. 2 to 3 where down longterm simply to supply parts for the rest(Canni birds we called them), and of the remaining 8, we were lucky if 6 where up and ready to fly at any particular time.

Edit: we eventually got lot 13's(the C version), and life got oh so much better. From the oldest 18's in the fleet, to the newest.
Click to expand...




You and I both know that the only thing that can beat an F/A-18 is the F-16.




F/A -18 :


Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6[190][191] (1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[20]
Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[192]
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m)
Rate of climb: 44,882 ft/min[193] (228 m/s)
Wing loading: 94.0 lb/ft² (459 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.93 (1.1 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[194]
Design load factor: 7.6 g[61]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet




F-35


Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[77][477] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[222]
Range: >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 669 nmi[478] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[479] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[480] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07

Maximum g-load: 9 g


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II




F-22

Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h) [estimated][116]
Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,960 km/h)[116]

Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 460 nmi (with 100 nmi in supercruise) clean[276][N 6] (529 mi, 852 km)
Ferry range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Service ceiling: >65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Wing loading: 77.2 lb/ft² (377 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08
Maximum design g-load: +9.0/−3.0 g[116]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor



My all time fav aircraft ----- LONG LIVE the F/A-18 Hornet






Major Lambda
 
Major Lambda said:
You and I both know that the only thing that can beat an F/A-18 is the F-16.


Major Lambda
Click to expand...

We had an airforce pilot on a cross-training deal. He was a very good F-16 pilot(the airforce did not send mediocre pilots on those deals), and he was convinced the 18 would win in most cases in a fight between the 16 and 18, unless it was only guns. Nowadays, I could not say, but back then he claimed the 18 software and radar was superior, and that would make the difference.
 
Redress said:
We had an airforce pilot on a cross-training deal. He was a very good F-16 pilot(the airforce did not send mediocre pilots on those deals), and he was convinced the 18 would win in most cases in a fight between the 16 and 18, unless it was only guns. Nowadays, I could not say, but back then he claimed the 18 software and radar was superior, and that would make the difference.
Click to expand...


The F/A - 18 is my all time favorite aircraft. But if you watch F-16 video and do the research......the F-16 is more nimble and acrobatic in the air than other US Aircraft. That is why the Air Force took their all weather interceptor ---- the F-15 Eagle ......And gave most Combat Air Patrols and overseas missions to the F-16. An adversary has a better chance of shooting an F-15 Eagle out of the air..... in air to air combat ; than the F-16 .




Major Lambda
 
Major Lambda said:
The F/A - 18 is my all time favorite aircraft. But if you watch F-16 video and do the research......the F-16 is more nimble and acrobatic in the air than other US Aircraft. That is why the Air Force took their all weather interceptor ---- the F-15 Eagle ......And gave most Combat Air Patrols and overseas missions to the F-16. An adversary has a better chance of shooting an F-15 Eagle out of the air..... in air to air combat ; than the F-16 .




Major Lambda
Click to expand...

It depends on the situation. The F-16 is a better dogfight, but that is far from the only air to air combat.
 
Redress said:
It depends on the situation. The F-16 is a better dogfight, but that is far from the only air to air combat.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia --- Look at the Thrust to weight , rate of climb , and the " G Load " .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon



Performance

Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[70]
At altitude: Mach 2[3] (1,320 mph; 2,120 km/h) clean configuration
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi; 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi; 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[3] (15,240+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[263]
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g




https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html




Major Lambda
 
Major Lambda said:
From Wikipedia --- Look at the Thrust to weight , rate of climb , and the " G Load " .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon



Performance

Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[70]
At altitude: Mach 2[3] (1,320 mph; 2,120 km/h) clean configuration
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi; 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi; 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[3] (15,240+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[263]
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g




https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html




Major Lambda
Click to expand...

Yes, that is dogfighting. I will give you an example: when I was in, the inservice competition was between F-14s and F-18s, who was better. Close in, the 18s won, and won most every time. They where a superior dogfighting airframe. However, the F-14 ruled the skies, as at that time, no other aircraft could do what they could, which is draw a 100 mile plus radius circle from the aircraft, and kill anything that entered it, with a 90 + % certainty. Eventually, AAMRAAM would improve to where any aircraft could do that, but I was gone before then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom