Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 524
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
F-35Cs are not replacing F-18E/F, but F-18C/D (along with AV-8Bs and F-16C/D) .
Yep, nor did I said they would. Two squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs and two squadrons of F-35Cs per deck, as currently envisioned.
...would be absolutely terrifying to have to fight. I hate the view of the F-35 as an excuse to cut Raptor numbers, but frankly can't wait to get the legacy Hornets the hell away from our carriers. The structural concerns alone are bad enough, let along the highly limited load. F-35Cs are very welcome IMO.
Sponsor
Posted: May 26, 2012 - 11:45 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
hcobb
Posted: Jan 08, 2012 - 07:53 PM
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
"Highly limited load F-35Cs" Huh?!?
F-18E MTOW 30 mt - EW 14.5 mt = 15.5 tons
F-35C MTOW 31.8 mt - EW 15.8 mt = 16 tons
F-22 MTOW 38 mt - EW 19.7 nt = 18.3 tons
And the F-35 is more fuel efficient than the Raptor.
southernphantom
Posted: Jan 08, 2012 - 08:06 PM
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 524
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
hcobb wrote:
"Highly limited load F-35Cs" Huh?!?
F-18E MTOW 30 mt - EW 14.5 mt = 15.5 tons
F-35C MTOW 31.8 mt - EW 15.8 mt = 16 tons
F-22 MTOW 38 mt - EW 19.7 nt = 18.3 tons
And the F-35 is more fuel efficient than the Raptor.
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
