Posted on 05/24/2008 5:52:21 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
To the Super Hornet, yes. To the Hornet, no.
Both still in use ?
Dick Cheney killed the F-14 while SecDef.
Yes. The Hornet is slated to be replaced by the F-35.
"In other news, the USAF and USN have launched a study to determine the optimal method for getting a C-17 off an aircraft carrier."
I believe that the study report has been released, and the finding is that the optimal method for getting a C-17 off of an aircraft carrier is with a crane.
Mark
I am appalled if that is true. While it doesn’t really make much difference for the Growler since the Prowler couldn’t do that either, I can’t believe that is true for the fighter version.
I respect your expertise in this, since I have followed your postings on this stuff, but...I just find that hard to believe.
No disrespect intended, but I read the article and the thing is entirely anecdotal with no statistical information.
Do you have any links to any other info that can collaborate this? Also, the link to the article from that thread is dead.
I was thinking the new magnetic launch system and a few JATO’s.
I do understand that one of the main reasons the Tomcat was retired was the man hours of maintenance per flight versus the Hornet (something in the area of 50 versus 15 respectively.
If I sound incredulous, it is because I am to a degree, not because I think you are talking out of your rear. As I said, I have read your posts over the years, and you sound like you understand military aviation pretty well. In this respect, while I am a former jet mechanic, I am the one who is likely uninformed on this.
Partially, I am a bit stunned after watching that PBS special “Carrier”. I am feeling very old after watching that, and I know that every single person always looks at the way things are currently done, and compares them unfavorably to the way they did it.
But I have to say: I think the US Navy changed FAR more in the 25 years since I was working the flight deck (1980 to 2005) than it did in the in the 25 year span before I joined up (1950-1975)
I am not talking hardware, I am talking culture. Obviously, hardware changed a great deal in the 1950-1975 interval, much more so than 1980-2005.
So, I was appalled watching that series. Granted, it was PBS and I should have known, but they made those sailors look like idiots, and that was tough for me to swallow.
Now this. I understand sea level performance is not the end-all be-all of aviation performance, and I know the Hornet is no Tomcat (I am one of the biggest fans of the Tomcat) but I had to think, especially after watching that mini-series, that one of the biggest problems facing the Navy is getting the personnel to work on the planes. Could be, and sad to consider, that the man hours needed to fly the plane may have been one of the primary considerations.
Gack.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
The F-14 remains one of the loveliest planes to grace the skies from any nation. It looked nimble even sitting still.
No disrespect to you but I have no doubt as to the veracity of Gillcrist's and Kress's claims about the Super Hornet and you know as well as I do that the Navy is not going to go on the record and admit that the Hornet and Super Hornet have reduced the capability of the CVW. NAVAIR is toeing the party line about what great airplanes the E/F are but privately wishing they had fought to save the Tomcat.
“F-111 was actually a joint project that was supposed to result in a Navy fighter. F-111s did launch and recover from CVs in tests.”
All very true.
However....
The scuttlebutt on those tests spoke of an unnamed senior officer, who after watching the deck apes running for cover after the first recovery/launch cycle, said something to the effect of “Get that [DELETED] overweight [DELETED] off of my [DELETED] deck!”
That wasn’t the only Gong Show entry that MacNamera’s Band fobbed off on us, but at least all the Aardvark cost was dollars instead of names on headstones.
My apologies to all who did fly the F-111, but sometimes one-size-fits-all doesn’t fit much of anybody.
I know you don’t mean any disrespect, none taken.
Do you think the effort required to maintain it had had anything to do with the decision, or is that an excuse?
With such a stunning disclosure (for me, at least) how is it that Boeing is able to remain competitive in these countries that are looking to buy a fighter?
You figure when they do a fly-off, someone would notice that deficiency, and compare it unfavorably to a SU27 or whatever the competition is.
It's the local newspaper, so I assume that they are aware that they are in Washington state and see no reason to remind their readers of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.