User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:11:47 PM EDT
[#1]
They might have a use for them someday. It's a form of hoarding.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:13:37 PM EDT
[#2]
because its the best aircraft that suits the nations needs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:13:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Reserves for the US Navy.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:14:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Realistically, what options do you have from the U.S.?
F/A-18 F-16 F-15 Which one is the cheapest/ most versatile/ best bang for the buck? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:14:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Specifically I'm talking about countries like Canada and Australia buying F/A-18s. Why not buy non-carrier aircraft that don't have to have the heavy-duty landing gear, etc. Seems like they're getting the disadvantage without any use for the extra capability. They may not have carriers but they know people who do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:14:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Raze a tanker, strengthen her decks and you have an updated version of the WW II MAC (merchant aircraft carrier). So what if she can't land anything other than a helicopter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:14:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Durability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:17:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Don't they have some very short runways where they use catapults and arresters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:17:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Switzerland flys FA18s and they don't have a coast. What they do have is an incredibly capable air superiority aircraft that can operate from short runways.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:18:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Swiss or Australian or Finnish Hornets aren't really any more carrier aircraft than an F-16 is just because it has an arrestor hook.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:19:06 PM EDT
[#11]
A question would be - do those countries practice carrier landings / arrest cables at airports?
If they did, then they may be preparing and training with the use of, and aid to, American carrier operations in complex engagements. If not ... then it's just because the aircraft are cheap and compliant enough. I would imagine F-18's withstand corrosion better than most other planes, are probably easier to change out engines and such, and probably have a few other things going for them. Perhaps the better landing gear is able to withstand lesser-trained pilots making more mistakenly harder landings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:19:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Maybe the ones the foreign buyers buy dont have the carrier spec stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:20:00 PM EDT
[#13]
COTS (~)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:21:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Crappy runway capable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:21:58 PM EDT
[#15]
I know australia has a lot of hornets. Do any of them actually practice carrier landings?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:23:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Short field and hard landing capability might be useful.
Or they might have a version with less-strengthened landing gear and no catapult provision, optimized for flying from land bases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:25:28 PM EDT
[#17]
The FA-18 has to do all things decently well for a relatively low price. If your country has a small budget, that's pretty damn attractive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:27:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Switzerland flys FA18s and they don't have a coast. What they do have is an incredibly capable air superiority aircraft that can operate from short runways. When we bought the hornet we evaluated the F-16 as well. The problem was/is that some of our runways require steeper glideslopes/approaches that an F-16 even with airbrakes out and at idle can't maintain a sufficiently slow approach with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:28:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When we bought the hornet we evaluated the F-16 as well. The problem was/is that some of our runways require steeper glideslopes/approaches that an F-16 even with airbrakes out and at idle can't maintain a sufficiently slow approach with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Switzerland flys FA18s and they don't have a coast. What they do have is an incredibly capable air superiority aircraft that can operate from short runways. When we bought the hornet we evaluated the F-16 as well. The problem was/is that some of our runways require steeper glideslopes/approaches that an F-16 even with airbrakes out and at idle can't maintain a sufficiently slow approach with. Oui! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:28:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swiss or Australian or Finnish Hornets aren't really any more carrier aircraft than an F-16 is just because it has an arrestor hook. I thinks ours still are as we maintened the equipment. Some aren't, like the Spanish Hornet who have the launch bar removed, Some of our pilots are even carrier qualified.(some time ago) We practice cable arrested landing on runways, but it has nothing to do with carrier landing |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:29:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Some land bases have arresting gear.
Because of flight hydraulic failure and combined hydraulic problems, we landed an F-14 back in '93 at a base in Bahrain with the arresting gear deployed. I met the crew out at the runway (aircraft unable to make it back to the tarmac due to hydraulic problems) with some of the base brass. Some super glittery local Bahrain air force guy who by the looks of his uniform never got his hands dirty in his life, came with us and asked through an interpreter if the arresting speed was over 100 knots, because if so they'd need to inspect the cable. I told him don't sweat it, it was under 100 knots. Looking back, they should've inspected the cable.
A few months earlier I almost put the same bird in the drink when moving it from the hangar bay to the flight deck while riding brakes. It was a problem child, and out poly bird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:33:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Well, if you decide that the F-18 is the aircraft that has the capabilities you desire at a satisfactory price point, then that is the aircraft you buy. Most people who drive 4 wheel drive pickups or SUV's rarely if ever use/need the capability, but they like the rest of the package well enough that they buy them anyway. The F-18 (especially the Super Hornet) offers tremendous capabilities and very affordable price tags, making them one of the best bang for your buck options out there. The fact they are beefed up for carrier ops doesn't make them any less useful when operated from runways. And unlike the F-16, the F-18 has two engines, a very important consideration for many buyers. And the Super Bug remains about $30 million cheaper per aircraft than new build F-15s which are going for $100 million a pop. Again, the Super Hornet is the best bang for the buck western fighter aircraft out there today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:35:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A question would be - do those countries practice carrier landings / arrest cables at airports? If they did, then they may be preparing and training with the use of, and aid to, American carrier operations in complex engagements. If not ... then it's just because the aircraft are cheap and compliant enough. I would imagine F-18's withstand corrosion better than most other planes, are probably easier to change out engines and such, and probably have a few other things going for them. Perhaps the better landing gear is able to withstand lesser-trained pilots making more mistakenly harder landings? No,very few of their pilots are carrier qualified,only ones who have been on exchange wiith the USN or USMC.You will never see Malaysian or Kuwaiti Hornets on a carrier. The only nation who doesn't have a carrier that you'll ever see planes doing even touch and goes on is Argentina,whose navy still dreams of another carrier Notice that his hook isn't down 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:35:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Limb here but any chance that our leaders are giving aid to aka tax payer dollars (debt) to offset the costs so the US military industrial complex can sell stuff
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:37:15 PM EDT
[#25]
I always thought it was the two engines versus one issue. Canada and Australia both have large uninhabited areas where an engine failure on a single engine plane can lead to a fata survival situation following a successful ejection. Not much different from the Navy operating at sea, where an engine failure on a twin engine aircraft still allows the plane to limp home on the remaining good engine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:38:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Iran back in Shah's time bought a bunch of F-14s without hook. They were flown against Iraq during their war. The Shah knew a good thing when he saw one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:41:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iran back in Shah's time bought a bunch of F-14s without hook. They were flown against Iraq during their war. The Shah knew a good thing when he saw one. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_16.jpg Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. ETA: they worked around some of the AWG-9 problems Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:47:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Iran back in Shah's time bought a bunch of F-14s without hook. They were flown against Iraq during their war. The Shah knew a good thing when he saw one. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_16.jpg Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! I've never heard that. Some literature claims numerous missile kills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:47:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never heard that. Some literature claims numerous missile kills. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran back in Shah's time bought a bunch of F-14s without hook. They were flown against Iraq during their war. The Shah knew a good thing when he saw one. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_16.jpg Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! I've never heard that. Some literature claims numerous missile kills. Edited |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:48:15 PM EDT
[#30]
My understanding was that the Australians had their F/A-18s built without any of the carrier-specific equipment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:55:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't they have some very short runways where they use catapults and arresters? We used to call them SATS. Strategic Airfield for Tactical Support. 29 Palms used to have one. They have arresting gear, but I've never seen one with a Cat. JATO/RATO would be used if the runway was too short for a particular load. FWIW, every Navy/USMC Air Station has/had arresting gear for training, and emergency use. I wouldn't be surprised if AF bases have it as well. Edit; The U.S. Navy trains foreign aviators to do carrier Ops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:00:28 PM EDT
[#32]
The USAF did it with F-4s and as far as I know, they never did any carrier landings with 'em. If they did, I'd like to read about it.
Sometimes it's better to just go with the good aircrat that you can get and not quibble about the little stuff. Or, in other words, "perfect is the enemy of plenty good enough" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:03:32 PM EDT
[#33]
F/A-18>F-16
Dual engines offer reliability over single, in a cheaper package than the F-15. Also, when it comes to "beefed up" landing gear, the F/A-18 uses more physics that brute strength to absorb a landing. If you were to isolate the airframe strengthening and difference in landing gear your talking maybe a couple hundred pounds extra. The early F-16s also all suffer from cracked and damaged bulkheads that the landing gear, and aircraft accessories mount to, if I remember right it's the 341 bulkhead and basically the backbone of the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:04:22 PM EDT
[#34]
I have a cousin whose husband is in the Australian RAF (yes I know long winded that sounds). From the sounds of it there was some pretty messed up politics involved in the F18s acquisition. My understanding is that the PM (Howard?)did it without consulting many of the government entities he should have and they ended up with a much smaller, lighter payload, and shorter ranged aircraft than suited a nation that big with entirely ocean locked boarders. The impression I got was that there was more corporate interests involved than national defense strategy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:04:53 PM EDT
[#35]
There really aren't all that many aircraft types to choose from. In a few years, the USA will only be producing F-35s and there will only be a couple of types coming out of Europe. Russia and China will probably have a couple of types each. Did I miss anyone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:06:17 PM EDT
[#36]
They're going to get a guy like this on a USO tour on an aircraft carrier:
Then they'll take over the carrier and put their planes on it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:06:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The USAF did it with F-4s and as far as I know, they never did any carrier landings with 'em. If they did, I'd like to read about it. F15's, and F16's have tailhooks as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:12:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F15's, and F16's have tailhooks as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The USAF did it with F-4s and as far as I know, they never did any carrier landings with 'em. If they did, I'd like to read about it. F15's, and F16's have tailhooks as well. They are for airfield arresting devices, not rated for carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:13:35 PM EDT
[#39]
The real question here is why the USAF has the F-16 instead of the F/A-18.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:13:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. ETA: they worked around some of the AWG-9 problems Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Iran back in Shah's time bought a bunch of F-14s without hook. They were flown against Iraq during their war. The Shah knew a good thing when he saw one. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_16.jpg Those are beautiful examples of the aircraft, even though their fire control radar doesn't allow ordnance to be launched. ETA: they worked around some of the AWG-9 problems Gun kills is all they have, and they learned to use that Vulcan cannon efficiently! More story here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:17:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FA-18 has to do all things decently well for a relatively low price. If your country has a small budget, that's pretty damn attractive.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:21:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some land bases have arresting gear. Because of flight hydraulic failure and combined hydraulic problems, we landed an F-14 back in '93 at a base in Bahrain with the arresting gear deployed. I met the crew out at the runway (aircraft unable to make it back to the tarmac due to hydraulic problems) with some of the base brass. Some super glittery local Bahrain air force guy who by the looks of his uniform never got his hands dirty in his life, came with us and asked through an interpreter if the arresting speed was over 100 knots, because if so they'd need to inspect the cable. I told him don't sweat it, it was under 100 knots. Looking back, they should've inspected the cable. A few months earlier I almost put the same bird in the drink when moving it from the hangar bay to the flight deck while riding brakes. It was a problem child, and out poly bird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:26:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Look at all the countries who used A-4 skyhawks that did not even have a Navy, much less an aircraft carrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:35:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a cousin whose husband is in the Australian RAF (yes I know long winded that sounds). From the sounds of it there was some pretty messed up politics involved in the F18s acquisition. My understanding is that the PM (Howard?)did it without consulting many of the government entities he should have and they ended up with a much smaller, lighter payload, and shorter ranged aircraft than suited a nation that big with entirely ocean locked boarders. The impression I got was that there was more corporate interests involved than national defense strategy. Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a cousin whose husband is in the Australian RAF (yes I know long winded that sounds). From the sounds of it there was some pretty messed up politics involved in the F18s acquisition. My understanding is that the PM (Howard?)did it without consulting many of the government entities he should have and they ended up with a much smaller, lighter payload, and shorter ranged aircraft than suited a nation that big with entirely ocean locked boarders. The impression I got was that there was more corporate interests involved than national defense strategy. Nah. What else was there at the time? They first entered service in 84 to replace Mirage IIIs. If they were talking about the superbugs, which replaced the F111 as well, well they are only a stopgap measure until we get F35s...which should have been here a long time ago. Wiki says Overall, the RAAF concluded that while both aircraft met its requirements and the F-16 was less expensive, the F/A-18 was the superior design as it was more technologically mature, easier to maintain during operational deployments, and likely to have a much lower attrition rate.[12] The Government accepted this advice, and announced on 20 October 1981 that 75 F/A-18s would be ordered. As part of this announcement, Minister for Defence Jim Killen acknowledged that the F-16 would have been seven percent cheaper to purchase, but stated that the F/A-18's lower running costs and expected attrition rate greatly reduced the difference between the lifetime cost of the two designs.[13] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:36:56 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Posts like the above are the reason I am a member here, carry on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Some land bases have arresting gear. Because of flight hydraulic failure and combined hydraulic problems, we landed an F-14 back in '93 at a base in Bahrain with the arresting gear deployed. I met the crew out at the runway (aircraft unable to make it back to the tarmac due to hydraulic problems) with some of the base brass. Some super glittery local Bahrain air force guy who by the looks of his uniform never got his hands dirty in his life, came with us and asked through an interpreter if the arresting speed was over 100 knots, because if so they'd need to inspect the cable. I told him don't sweat it, it was under 100 knots. Looking back, they should've inspected the cable.
A few months earlier I almost put the same bird in the drink when moving it from the hangar bay to the flight deck while riding brakes. It was a problem child, and out poly bird. The hangar bay-to-flight deck story is quite a long one. Too long for GD. 
Put it this way. The call to full starboard rudder over the 1MC at the exact instant I was climbing into the cockpit to ride brakes on a hydraulically-deficient F14 was enough to make me say to myself "you've GOT to be kidding me". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:37:58 PM EDT
[#46]
In a word? Marketing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:44:21 PM EDT
[#47]
we have some short runways, and practice landings and takeoffs in case we ever need to do so in theatre on an allies carrier....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:47:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Switzerland flys FA18s and they don't have a coast. What they do have is an incredibly capable air superiority aircraft that can operate from short runways. F-18 isn't an air superiority fighter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:50:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we have some short runways, and practice landings and takeoffs in case we ever need to do so in theatre on an allies carrier.... Yeah, right. Does Canada even have a IFLOLS or FLOLS? Just because you can put the velocity vector 3* down on the wire for a fly in arrestment with a planing link failure doesn't mean you can operate around a CVN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:52:35 PM EDT
[#50]
why do i have a belly-button?
|
|
|
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.
