User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:03:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, this thread has really stirred up a hornet's nest. Many people have been expecting - one could even say, gearing up - for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:04:45 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, this thread has really stirred up a hornet's nest. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:06:08 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He hasn't mentioned turbo-props, so if its my troll account, its pretty low-key. Plus as far as I know the F18 is a pretty good program (my uncle, air force suprisingly, worked F18 program in the late 1970s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If he starts mouth-foaming about the F16A, we'll know it's a cmj retread. He hasn't mentioned turbo-props, so if its my troll account, its pretty low-key. Plus as far as I know the F18 is a pretty good program (my uncle, air force suprisingly, worked F18 program in the late 1970s. If anything, the AF should have went YF17. But Northrop was always a Black Sheep contractor whereas Convair/GD had big political influence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:08:44 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ouch Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That doesn't begin to describe my aviation experience inside and outside of "work", starting in 1974 at Airmate working for Dick Schreder. ouch Dick was a great pilot, engineer, and demanding craftsman. I learned a fair bit from him. Also a sufficiently good businessman to run other businesses that freed him to pursue his love of flying and design. I've worked on the F-18, too; HARV, 30 days on the production program in 1992  , and in liaison during my co-op days. I'll take advanced design.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:37:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: salmonid, I'm curious - Do you intend to work in the industry after graduation? Do you plan to go to grad school immediately after you finish a BS? Which segment of the industry? Which specialty? Have you attended career fairs this fall? I recommend that you do, if you plan to start work next summer, months are required to process resume's and applications. Do you have practical experience outside university work, i.e., mechanic, avionics, pilot, construction, etc? Is your school accredited by ABET? This is important; what are your expectations? Here are a few of the cool projects I have worked over several years: http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=32924 http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=27498 http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=9766 http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=8901 A V-6 engine installation in a Mustang II; I designed and performed the engineering anaysis, plus fabricated the mount for this successful conversion: http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=4863 http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=14897  http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=48064 That doesn't begin to describe my aviation experience inside and outside of "work", starting in 1974 at Airmate working for Dick Schreder. Here's the thing, somehow you missed the lesson about keeping your mouth shut and your eyes open for a while. After you leave school, you'll learn soon enough that the gulf between academia and industry is fairly wide. Your undergraduate education is a foundation, if you've done the work and mastered some of the fundamentals. If you go blowing into a group as a new employee as you've done here, you'll be given ample opportunity to exhibit how little you know. You won't be the smartest guy in the room, and you'll get crushed by the more experienced merely really smart guys. Love the biplane. I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:44:43 AM EDT
[#6]
I would easily say OP has never felt the buzz in his shorts when this goes off.
That is the smell, sound, and look of freedom! I know it is a "Foxtrot", but still the same message. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:48:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would easily say OP has never felt the buzz in his shorts when this goes off. http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/136168/f-a-18-carrier-launch-o.gif That is the smell, sound, and look of freedom! I know it is a "Foxtrot", but still the same message. Neither have I, but I can keep my mouth shut and am a pretty likeable guy. Can you arrange it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:23:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
then.... there's that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:59:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:16:14 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:25:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? Engineering?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:26:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? Dartboard guess is "Engineer" What do I win, AeroE? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:33:17 AM EDT
[#13]
I was gonna go with Egghead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:33:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dartboard guess is "Engineer" What do I win, AeroE? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... I have just noticed that I misspelled your username when I sent off an IM to make you aware of this thread.
I was out doing non-work related flying things for three days. 'Bout time, too. The interesting part about my username is the number of people that completely miss that giant E on the end. It's either invisible or it falls in the eye's blind spot for most folks. I'll be the first to admit I can be a slow learner at times so I'm not surprised I don't know what you're talking about. What does the "E" mean? Dartboard guess is "Engineer" What do I win, AeroE? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You could probably get a hug from salmonid, I expect he needs one back from a warm body, the odds that a female other than his mom upstairs will give him one are low and sinking fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:34:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was gonna go with Egghead. Last hijack. Dang I just now realized this probably explains the reason the F/A-18 is a turd: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:37:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But those "...aeronautical engineers and pilots" wouldn't answer when I asked them why I was wrong. Seniority aside, when you can't or won't support your own claims I find no reason to listen to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<cut> But those "...aeronautical engineers and pilots" wouldn't answer when I asked them why I was wrong. Seniority aside, when you can't or won't support your own claims I find no reason to listen to them. I'm your huckleberry. You chose to troll GD, where you seem to only be responding to ad hoc comments. I've chosen the Pit, where I'm willing to put my membership up against yours - your month-old, non-paying membership. I'm simply a mechanical engineer with one lowly 3 credit hour course: Intro to Flight - and that was decades ago. You should be able to club me like a baby seal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:39:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He hasn't mentioned turbo-props, so if its my troll account, its pretty low-key. Plus as far as I know the F18 is a pretty good program (my uncle, air force suprisingly, worked F18 program in the late 1970s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer If he starts mouth-foaming about the F16A, we'll know it's a cmj retread. He hasn't mentioned turbo-props, so if its my troll account, its pretty low-key. Plus as far as I know the F18 is a pretty good program (my uncle, air force suprisingly, worked F18 program in the late 1970s. Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:41:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm your huckleberry. You chose to troll GD, where you seem to only be responding to ad hoc comments. I've chosen the Pit, where I'm willing to put my membership up against yours - your month-old, non-paying membership. I'm simply a mechanical engineer with one lowly 3 credit hour course: Intro to Flight - and that was decades ago. You should be able to club me like a baby seal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: <cut> But those "...aeronautical engineers and pilots" wouldn't answer when I asked them why I was wrong. Seniority aside, when you can't or won't support your own claims I find no reason to listen to them. I'm your huckleberry. You chose to troll GD, where you seem to only be responding to ad hoc comments. I've chosen the Pit, where I'm willing to put my membership up against yours - your month-old, non-paying membership. I'm simply a mechanical engineer with one lowly 3 credit hour course: Intro to Flight - and that was decades ago. You should be able to club me like a baby seal. He's a JEEP, no more, and needs to know his role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:42:16 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm your huckleberry. You chose to troll GD, where you seem to only be responding to ad hoc comments. I've chosen the Pit, where I'm willing to put my membership up against yours - your month-old, non-paying membership. I'm simply a mechanical engineer with one lowly 3 credit hour course: Intro to Flight - and that was decades ago. You should be able to club me like a baby seal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<cut> But those "...aeronautical engineers and pilots" wouldn't answer when I asked them why I was wrong. Seniority aside, when you can't or won't support your own claims I find no reason to listen to them. I'm your huckleberry. You chose to troll GD, where you seem to only be responding to ad hoc comments. I've chosen the Pit, where I'm willing to put my membership up against yours - your month-old, non-paying membership. I'm simply a mechanical engineer with one lowly 3 credit hour course: Intro to Flight - and that was decades ago. You should be able to club me like a baby seal. I bet I can fold a better paper airplane than fishboy can draw up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:46:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Engineers, and especially engineering students, should just STFU until they've actually built and used the shit they are designing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:50:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. You are not my professor. B. Cruising on the step is bullshit C. Wrong topic, I'm not going to justify myself to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Describe the characteristics of the airplane you would design to do that job "better". Make absolutely certain you know those requirements. (You don't, and can't.) You don't get it, the McTards gave it too much control at high alpha by accident. It's not needed or anything. How about this then, a perfect question for a senior in an AE program, especially one that is a performance expert: The concept of cruising an airplane "on the step" has been around flying for decades. Is this a valid method of operating an airplane, or is it hooey? Show your work. A. You are not my professor. B. Cruising on the step is bullshit C. Wrong topic, I'm not going to justify myself to you. It most certainly isn't bullshit, it is quite real and is the concept is readily demonstrable, both in the classroom and the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It most certainly isn't bullshit, it is quite real and is the concept is readily demonstrable, both in the classroom and the real world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Describe the characteristics of the airplane you would design to do that job "better". Make absolutely certain you know those requirements. (You don't, and can't.) You don't get it, the McTards gave it too much control at high alpha by accident. It's not needed or anything. How about this then, a perfect question for a senior in an AE program, especially one that is a performance expert: The concept of cruising an airplane "on the step" has been around flying for decades. Is this a valid method of operating an airplane, or is it hooey? Show your work. A. You are not my professor. B. Cruising on the step is bullshit C. Wrong topic, I'm not going to justify myself to you. It most certainly isn't bullshit, it is quite real and is the concept is readily demonstrable, both in the classroom and the real world. Thank you for posting this. This should add sufficient emotion and energy to what was a nearly dead thread. Now let's have some fun. My popcorn timer just went off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:05:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Legacy Hornet actually replaced F-4, A-7, and an a few A-6 Intruder in Navy and USMC squadrons. The only Navy F-4 Squadrons it replaced were VF-151 and 161. The only Navy A-6 Intruder replaced was VA-34. The only F-14 squadron to go to Hornets was VF-201, which was a Reserve Squadron. All the rest were A-7 squadrons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm way late to this thread, but one of the OPs entering arguments is way off. The FA -18 didn't replace the F-14, it replaced the A-7. The Legacy Hornet actually replaced F-4, A-7, and an a few A-6 Intruder in Navy and USMC squadrons. The only Navy F-4 Squadrons it replaced were VF-151 and 161. The only Navy A-6 Intruder replaced was VA-34. The only F-14 squadron to go to Hornets was VF-201, which was a Reserve Squadron. All the rest were A-7 squadrons. And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:08:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:09:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 As with the Harpoon, the United States Navy lacks the leadership and vision to pursue a true replacement. They are content to wallow in mediocrity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:10:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:12:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Later versions of the Tomcat had some ATG capability, but Hornets do that job better and cheaper. The Tomcat's role of shooting down Soviet bombers and cruise missiles has been filled by the Standard missile, which has a longer range and doesn't tie up airframes to deliver it. Also, Tomcats weren't AMRAAM capable and relied on the much crappier Sparrow. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Right... F-14 was a single-mission aircraft Wow. All the Tomcat crews who did extensive mud moving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be surprised to learn that. Quoted: The Standard missile fills that role now. Lol. Phoenix is too heavy at 1000 lbs, so fighters carry 3000 pound Standard Missiles. I think you meant AIM-120. Later versions of the Tomcat had some ATG capability, but Hornets do that job better and cheaper. The Tomcat's role of shooting down Soviet bombers and cruise missiles has been filled by the Standard missile, which has a longer range and doesn't tie up airframes to deliver it. Also, Tomcats weren't AMRAAM capable and relied on the much crappier Sparrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:12:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To get an APG-63 Eagle these days, you'd have to rebuild one from the bone yard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... In his ignorance he did not specify which variant of the APG-63. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:13:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To get an APG-63 Eagle these days, you'd have to rebuild one from the bone yard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... Should have been more specific, APG-63(V)3, or an APG-82 equipped Eagle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:25:17 PM EDT
[#30]
So true and we have ignored the ASW. They got rid of the S-3 because they thought the Russians were done with submarines, but technology and other things have made diesel subs more doable now for smaller countries. The EA-6B was replaced by the EF-18G |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:26:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:28:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So true and we have ignored the ASW. They got rid of the S-3 because they thought the Russians were done with submarines, but technology and other things have made diesel subs more doable now for smaller countries. Naval Aviation's second largest program, by budget, is the P-8A. We just fielded the MH-60R. Surface ships are getting a much improved hull mounted SONAR. We did take an ASW holiday, but there are some much needed investments happening now. MIW OTOH... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:30:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not that I have a dog in this fight, I'm just here for the entertainment, but the f-14 was capable of carrying the aim-120 in the early years. In fact most of the testing (that I have photos and limited knowledge of) was done on the 14. I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:31:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... The Eagle hands down. But the Eagle, with the AGG-63v3 , is optimized for A2A, the Hornet, even if they fixed the problems with the APG-79, is still optimized as a multi-role fighter. Either way, I would still rather go up against the best the Russians have instead of the Hornet if playing for keeps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:31:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Naval Aviation's second largest program, by budget, is the P-8A. We just fielded the MH-60R. Surface ships are getting a much improved hull mounted SONAR. We did take an ASW holiday, but there are some much needed investments happening now. MIW OTOH... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So true and we have ignored the ASW. They got rid of the S-3 because they thought the Russians were done with submarines, but technology and other things have made diesel subs more doable now for smaller countries. Naval Aviation's second largest program, by budget, is the P-8A. We just fielded the MH-60R. Surface ships are getting a much improved hull mounted SONAR. We did take an ASW holiday, but there are some much needed investments happening now. MIW OTOH... Also, the best ASW platform is another submarine. (Not saying that airborne ASW assets are not useful.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:33:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should have been more specific, APG-63(V)3, or an APG-82 equipped Eagle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... Should have been more specific, APG-63(V)3, or an APG-82 equipped Eagle. I don't know anything about the APG-82, I got out long befire anybody was talking about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:33:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Onboard Ranger, we had no Light attack, just two A-6 Squadrons; Same as onboard Kennedy.
The A-6s were fitted with AIM-9L sidewinder rails, because they were expected to fill the role as light attack and go in with a light bomb load. They were going to basically mimic an A-7 in light attack capability when needed. Except for the S-3 and SH-3, all aircraft in CVW-2 the last years of Ranger were Grumman products. Now, I think only the Hawkeye is the last Grumman product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:35:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not that I have a dog in this fight, I'm just here for the entertainment, but the f-14 was capable of carrying the aim-120 in the early years. In fact most of the testing (that I have photos and limited knowledge of) was done on the 14. I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:40:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:41:48 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not that I have a dog in this fight, I'm just here for the entertainment, but the f-14 was capable of carrying the aim-120 in the early years. In fact most of the testing (that I have photos and limited knowledge of) was done on the 14. I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. That, and the aim-120's I was referring to were the "A" models. I believe we are on the "D" model now. so quite a bit of upgrading has gone into the AIM-120 long after the 14 was out of service. The AIM-120 and the 14 both hold a special place as they both put food on the table as I was growing up. I will have to ask if the 14 was still in service if is capatable with the new 120's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:44:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not that I have a dog in this fight, I'm just here for the entertainment, but the f-14 was capable of carrying the aim-120 in the early years. In fact most of the testing (that I have photos and limited knowledge of) was done on the 14. I would guess that once the Navy decided to go the Super Hornet route, it was a financial decision to not upgrade the F-14 fleet to be interoperable with AIM-120. The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. I've always been curious about this and would like to know your thoughts. Do you think the F-14 would have faired better if the designers had gone with a fixed wing? And on that note, if the 14 had had a fixed wing would the airframe have been significantly better than the F-15s in that sense? Then to come full circle, if the Navy had gone with something like the Sea Eagle of a fixed wing 14, would it still be flying today like the Eagle is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:47:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Increased weight, complexity, and expense of the hinged wing doesn't offset the limited improvement in performance. Wasn't worth it according to many. This is not my opinion. I have no right to an opinion on the matter as I lack AeroE's credentials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:56:37 PM EDT
[#43]
OP's fall-back argument: Guys, I only meant the F/A-18 isn't perfect, and that there may be a better platform out there yet undiscovered.
Followed by announcing his political campaign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:00:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In his ignorance he did not specify which variant of the APG-63. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... In his ignorance he did not specify which variant of the APG-63. Well, I say "base model", but let's be honest, V1, V2, etc aren't modifications or upgrades, they're whole new radar sets (apart, obviously, from the use of the same old 031 on the V1). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:18:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Naval Aviation's second largest program, by budget, is the P-8A. We just fielded the MH-60R. Surface ships are getting a much improved hull mounted SONAR. We did take an ASW holiday, but there are some much needed investments happening now. MIW OTOH... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So true and we have ignored the ASW. They got rid of the S-3 because they thought the Russians were done with submarines, but technology and other things have made diesel subs more doable now for smaller countries. Naval Aviation's second largest program, by budget, is the P-8A. We just fielded the MH-60R. Surface ships are getting a much improved hull mounted SONAR. We did take an ASW holiday, but there are some much needed investments happening now. MIW OTOH... Does sled sweeping go away with the -53? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:21:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Eagle hands down. But the Eagle, with the AGG-63v3 , is optimized for A2A, the Hornet, even if they fixed the problems with the APG-79, is still optimized as a multi-role fighter. Either way, I would still rather go up against the best the Russians have instead of the Hornet if playing for keeps. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Having fought against them often, I can tell you, The F18 is a very formidable weapons system and the OP is clueless. ( not the op of the pit thread, the OP of the douche nozzle thread) But you knew that already. So would you rather be in an APG-79 SuperHornet or an APG-63 Eagle fighting the other... The Eagle hands down. But the Eagle, with the AGG-63v3 , is optimized for A2A, the Hornet, even if they fixed the problems with the APG-79, is still optimized as a multi-role fighter. Either way, I would still rather go up against the best the Russians have instead of the Hornet if playing for keeps. Are we talking WVR or BVR? Curious, were you able to fight any baby Hornets after the new FCS software came out? That was a game changer for BFM. BVR, APG-79 def gives the Superhornet some nice capability. The Superhornet can be optimized for A2A, that will n my opinion puts it at a level with your average F-15C, but it rare to do that, because as you said, the main mission is multi-role. Also, the average F-15C pilot, A2A is all they do so they get damn good at it. At least with Eagles, you get to fight, when fighting Raptors, it can be "Fights on, Showrime flight, you're dead". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:27:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Fly, which software revision are you referring to? Legacy Hornets have gone thru some 20+ revisions of the EFCS code...
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:36:36 PM EDT
[#48]
Gotta love GD
The dumbest motherfuckers on Earth will argue why they are right when they have subject matter experts telling them how and why they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:41:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotta love GDThe dumbest motherfuckers on Earth will argue why they are right when they have subject matter experts telling them how and why they are wrong. It never fails, does it? This one, however, was so demonstratively wrong that I thought it warranted extra attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:50:58 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure we do, the Super Hornet Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
