The current F/A-18 A, C, and D fleet is slow, has limited range, and is fuel needy. It is a jack of all trades master of none. It was not designed to be a fleet defender which is the role the F/A 18 E/F will take over from the F-14 Tomcat. It was designed to replace the A-7E Corsair II as a medium attack aircraft. Please take this in the right sprit- I'm not out to dis anyone, just asking that you consider mission requirements and recognize that the Hornet meets them better than anything else on the immediate horizon (lets give JSF a little more time to bakeįirst off, I am not knocking the F/A-18 Hornet as it does what it was designed to due quite well. And give me a break on the mach 2 issue- F4s in Vietnam proved that the need for mach 2 wasn't nearly as important as a good gun and the ability to turn.
The supper Hornet is simply a larger version of a proven design that allows for more take home fuel at the end of the day. In the past attack fighters would have jettisoned their load first, essentially defeating their attack role. Keep in mind that the Hornet was the first ac to prove that a true multi-role configuration works- It was fully loaded Navy F18s that made the first ac kills of the gulf war as they defended themselves and went on to complete their attack. It is obvious that the Hornet exceeded those requirements and that the SHornet is even better.
I can't get over the timbre of this thread- For some reason the SHornet is getting trashed because it won't hit mach 2? I think you're missing the point.Īlthough the YF17 was originally planned for the tactical fighter role that the F16 filled, the F18 has always been multirole and has done a remarkable job replacing the A7, A6, and now F14- Why would anyone demand such a plane to outperform its predecessor in every way? The important question is, what metrics are required, and can the ac meet them?
0 kommentar(er)
