Ignoring the facts does not change them.
<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>
| Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| USAF is considering new F-15E's! http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4031 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | TheBigThug [ 07 Dec 2003, 03:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Scuttle the Kraptors...... "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters." -Genghis Khan |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 07 Dec 2003, 18:11 ] |
| Post subject: | |
While they are at it, they should make a navalized F-15E... There was some F-14A's converted to D(R) standard Vette, but not nearly enough. |
|
| Author: | Rafale Blackhall [ 12 Dec 2003, 15:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The F-15E may be old tech, compared to the F22, but its abilities are tried and tested, as are the FA18, (all variants), so surely the USAF might find what it needs in the FA18F! if its good enough for the navy, then im sure the airforce will find no problems with it, after all, naval ops place more stress on the airframe. Delete things like tail hook, folding wings, as they are not needed for land based operations, then the USAF may get exactly what they need to replace the F15E strike eagle. <img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/megazone23/su27.jpg" border=0> ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US |
|
| Author: | prkiii [ 12 Dec 2003, 16:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The F-15E may be old tech, compared to the F22, but its abilities are tried and tested, as are the FA18, (all variants), <b>so surely the USAF might find what it needs in the FA18F!</b> if its good enough for the navy, then im sure the airforce will find no problems with it, after all, naval ops place more stress on the airframe. Delete things like tail hook, folding wings, as they are not needed for land based operations, then the USAF may get exactly what they need to replace the F15E strike eagle. <img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/megazone23/su27.jpg" border=0> ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> No way does the Air Force want the F-18F...the F-15E is a great airplane, and if you knew all the things the SPO is working on down here at Robins to upgrade the current E models you wouldn't call it "old" technology...some interesting things, if the funding comes through...and I'm out of the loop so to say now...but I repeat <b>THE USAF DOES NOT WANT F-18Fs</b> The F-15E is a far better aircraft....(ok, maybe I'm biased as I have worked F-15s as well as A-10s...but oh well...that's life) Also...the F-15E is far from being replaced...even by the F/A-22...I can't remember the exact date, but the E models aren't due to go out of service for a very very long time....A & B models will be retired & the C & D models will go to the guard/reserves...but the E models will be around for a while..... Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator.....<img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle> If you can't go fast...go Ugly Edited by - prkiii on Dec 12 2003 3:10 PM |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 12 Dec 2003, 19:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I couldnt imagine the F18F polluting more than one service. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 12 Dec 2003, 22:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Me either hawg. The jarheads want no part of the stupid bug either. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 13 Dec 2003, 09:27 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its really a tough spot to be in when I try to take sides against the 18. I like the C & D aircraft as fighters. Yeah they dont have the range of the 14 but they are great aircraft. I just cant take the attack / fighter role of the 18E & F. I just feel that they are even inferior to the C & D models as far as performance. By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 13 Dec 2003, 09:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The USMC is not going to buy any Stupid bugs unless they totally reverse themselves. They just don't want them.....at all. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 13 Dec 2003, 14:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
"The only advantages of a C/D Hornet over a Super Hornet might be in a slightly higher thrust to weight ratio and that's about it - in what other area would you say the C/D's superior over an E/F?" It's actually more like 10% better. If you race a car that has a 10% higher p/w ratio, you are going to get crushed. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 13 Dec 2003, 16:20 ] |
| Post subject: | |
If it was up to me the F-18 line would close forever TOMMOROW. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 13 Dec 2003, 19:50 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah the F18 can deliver ordinance right into anyones back yard ? Even off a carrier the only back yard your flying to when compared to the range of an F14 or A6 is your next door neighbors back yard. The 18F cuts the effective stand off range of a carrier by some 350 miles. I said the C & D is superior as a fighter not in an attack profile to the 18F. As an ex sailor and F14 guy I might add I draw a distinct line between fighters and medium attack. Because as far as I am concerned no self respecting fighter guy would ever drop a bomb. But thats just my 80's F14 mentality talking. Which by the way is the reason we have F18's in the first place now isnt it ? By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 14 Dec 2003, 02:17 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The F-14D IS a good deep strike platform. So the USN's deep strike debacle will soon be complete. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 14 Dec 2003, 11:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dont do it Sniper.................your in danger of turning another thread into a you know what vs you know what debate. Ya know ? By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 14 Dec 2003, 11:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ignoring the facts does not change them.
<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | FlyBoy [ 14 Dec 2003, 16:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK I would like to see the facts. I've heard nothing other than "I know so" from either side, I would like to see some spects on each aircraft. I've talk to a F-18 pilot and he was very pleased with the plane. And I've heard the many points against it. so If we may do a compair and contrast with the numbers. <img src="http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b5/b62-7.jpg" border=0> overthere? naw, we'll kill from here. |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 14 Dec 2003, 19:29 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The F-14D IS a good deep strike platform. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> The F-14D even with the F-18E/F in the fleet remains the Navy's premier deep strike, precesion strike platform, and will remain that untill it is retired from fleet service... I can't help it Snipe
|
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 14 Dec 2003, 19:38 ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's OK Chad, cause i agree. Then again, so does Hawg. 
<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 14 Dec 2003, 20:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
BTW, the history chanel is runing a good case study of the Falklands War on World Almanac. Good reason to support the argument for fleet air defense with long range loiter, stand off, search and track, and mulit-shot capability, as well as a good reason to implore long range strike aircraft from the decks of CVN's. Brits were damn lucky that the A-4's didn't connect on their low level bomb runs (fuses on the dumb ordanace wasn't set properly), and even luckier that the Argies had a limited Exocet inventory. They still lost two destroyers... Edited by - chadrewsky on Dec 14 2003 8:14 PM |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|