Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Quote:

JOINT operations are becoming pretty commonplace now. When land bases are available, a strike package will have F-15 top cover. In all recent conflicts, this has been the case.....

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

JOINT operations are becoming pretty commonplace now. When land bases are available, a strike package will have F-15 top cover. In all recent conflicts, this has been the case.....

The most criticized criteria of the super hornet would be the navy making it into a buddy re-fueling tanker, and the future EA-18 super hornet. But isn't this a good thing, the navy is doing more with less?

Commonality. Fewer aircraft types make the limited space in a carriers hangar used more efficiently. More cost effective. Similar parts/systems for most aircraft, no need to build a new aircraft to replace the types which have reached the end of their life, like S-3, F-14 etc. Just save money by being smart and use what you already have. I am sure the Growler will be as effective as the Prowler it replaces. Joint ops` are the way ahead, maximising the firepower you can bring to bear on a very, very unfortunate enemy!

I think the navy is doing more with MORE, look at the specs` on the SH in terms of systems and capability, which we know about, publicly anyway..
Technology has reduced reliance on "numbers" or highly specialized aircraft. Look at the capabilities TOAN mentioned. It would be nice to have a naval F-22 but the navy doesn`t need one......

Great picture by the way dude!

Active Member Joined: Jan 10, 2005 - 07:58 AM Posts: 137

Bwadwey, if anyone in a hostile country saw that photo they're probably cleaning their laundry right now. Freakin awesome! I wouldn't be surprised if that pic was captioned "Do You Feel Lucky?"

Dammerung wrote:

Speed is life. Going slow is counter to everything that I personally have read on air combat.

How did Erich Hartmann rack up 352 Allied kills? High-Speed Attacks.
How did Allied Pilots defeat the A6M, which had LEGENDARY low speed maneuverability after the introduction of the F6F/F4U? High-Speed attacks.
What was the main advantage F-105s and F-4s had over the MiG-17? Speed.
All I can say is that it's a good thing that US Navy pilots have a history of working serious magic in the cockpit.

Then how did the Brit Harriers do so well in the arial campaign in the Falklands war? high speed attacks?
As for USN pilots working magic that's just a result of their brilliant training.

Yeahh but were the britsh Pilots going up against?

nzenthusiast wrote:

Yeahh but were the britsh Pilots going up against?

We've been over that again and again. The number 1 advantage the SHAR had was that the Argentine pilots were basically at bingo fuel when they got to the brittish fleet. No fuel = no afterburner and the advantage shifts radically the the SHAR. The number 2 advantage was the much better missiles that the US provided.

Quote:

We've been over that again and again. The number 1 advantage the SHAR had was that the Argentine pilots were basically at bingo fuel when they got to the brittish fleet. No fuel = no afterburner and the advantage shifts radically the the SHAR. The number 2 advantage was the much better missiles that the US provided.

You forgot to mention the vastly superior training and experience of the Brits. Even the best missiles are worthless if you don't know how to use them effectivley.

Oh, BTW, most, if not all kills in the Falklands were tail-aspect, so they could have been achieved as well with older variants.

Out of curiosity, why didn't the marines plan on getting the SUper hornet?

Because they prefer the AV-8. At least it doesn't pretend to be supersonic!

That's funny, but seriously though, I'm pretty sure they are gonna install better engines in the later blocks. I've heard that if a twin engine has a space in between them like the Tomcat, then you'll generate more thrust, so if anyone can specify me on that, it would be really helpful. And if so, what about the twin engine planes with it's engines attached like the Hornet, and single engined planes?

thanks

Active Member Joined: Jan 10, 2005 - 07:58 AM Posts: 137

The closer engines are spaced together, the more unpredictable the flow field interactions. That's why you see fairings between the engines on pretty much all twin engine fighters and bombers. I say bombers because the F-111 had a vertical fairing (more common is the lower-drag horizontal fairing i.e. Su3x, Tomcat, etc). The faster you go, the more drag is generated with wide spacing, so its a tradeoff between interaction and thrust effects and drag at high speeds.
Single engine designs have less drag simply because they usually have less wetted area and a single fin. Yes, designs like the BD-10 had twin fins and a single engine but the outward cant of the fins cancels some of that drag. The Hornet family and F-22 do the same thing but with twin engines. I recall hearing about "area constancy" way back in reference to why the Hornet stabilizers had so much outward cant but cannot remember the exact reason. If anyone out there is more up to date than I am, please chime in and let us know.

So now that we have cleared up that the Rhino can break the numbers down low, someone here says well not when its got a full load. Duh!! Rolling Eyes

Tell me what military aircraft (any country) that can. The F-111 was/is (Australia) the fastest thing down in the weeds bar none. But with a full load-out, it couldn't break the numbers down low. I know an F-16 can't either. Drag is the enemy down low. If any aircraft can/could, just think what the fuel consumption rate would be? You would only have a couple minutes before you were out of gas. The only aircraft that will be able to go supersonic with a full blown air to ground load out is probably an aircraft with internal weapons bays. So if you want to rag on the Rhino about its speed down low with a full load-out, then you need to add almost every other military aircraft in the world to your list.

Also thinking that you have to have a fast airplane to win in the WVR arena is a dangerous (and foolish) assumption. You are making comparisons with WWII, Korea and Vietnam era aircraft and tactics to those of today? First of all your wrong. The Phantom was faster than the MIGs in Nam and the US got its but kicked until TopGun arrrived to develope new tactics. Once again its not all about the speed. Speed is life but its not the only thing. Man I am sure glad you aren't in charge or writing todays tactics.

Later

NVGdude wrote:

nzenthusiast wrote:

Yeahh but were the britsh Pilots going up against?

We've been over that again and again. The number 1 advantage the SHAR had was that the Argentine pilots were basically at bingo fuel when they got to the brittish fleet. No fuel = no afterburner and the advantage shifts radically the the SHAR. The number 2 advantage was the much better missiles that the US provided.

Number one advantage, better trained pilots, better tactics, more aggressive air to air. SHARS were also "gas challenged" when the carriers moved 200 miles away from the Islands because of the Exocet threat.....

Number two advantage, I agree, the 9-L sidewinder. I also believe the SHAR pilots would have made a success of it with the older Sidewinder models. No offence, but people keep missing the point.....

NZ`, The Argentine pilots were a lot better than "The Iraqi pilots faced in late wars!" The pilots were good, their tactics and leaders were not..

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Why is there so little love for the F-18 Super Hornet?