On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:03:40 +0900, Michael Cash  ...
>
>On 1 Oct 2003 17:55:49 -0700, Brett Robson <jet_boy@deja.com> belched
>the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:54:29 +0900, Michael Cash  ...
>>>
>>>I remember when the F-4s and the A-7s were retired. I thought the A-7s
>>>were cool as hell. Slower than molasses, but damned cool looking. I
>>>remember standing on the signal bridge one fine day when an A-7 came
>>>in from the starboard beam, turned up on one wing (so he could fit)
>>>and flew *between* our forward and after stacks. Right over the signal
>>>bridge. It felt like I could almost reach my hand up and touch his
>>>wingtip.  Crazy bastard. (Him, not me).
>>
>>Pilots are intend complete idiots, naval pilots especially. How stupid do you
>>have to be to pilot an aircraft laden with bombs and fuel and get launched of an
>>aircraft carrier?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The F-14 was unique in that, as far as I know, it was the only plane
>>>ever designed around to fit a missile. The Navy came up with a
>>>monstrous air-to-air missile, the Phoenix, which had a range of about
>>>a jillion miles. Having no plane that could carry the damned thing,
>>>they had the F-14 built for it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I hadn't thought of that. I don't think Hornets can carry the Phoenix, I'll have
>>to google to see if the Super Hornet can. The Phoenix might be going the way of
>>the doodoo.
>
>I did a little googling around and found some interesting quotes on
>Tomcat vs. Super Hornet:

Thanks, I haven't had time.


>
>Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ....
>Leading Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super
>Hornet is a winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today,
>exceeding every operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any
>top-line fighter aircraft of today and tomorrow." 


That's the sort of stuff I've read. In my former career I had access to all the
military magazines and reference books, since then I've lost track of what's
going on.


>
>Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): 
>・踉&#65533;(B "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters
>fielded since
>the early 1960s."


FA-18C (?) that Australia bought to replace the very old French Dassault Mirage
is slower Mach 1.4 to 1.6 vs Mach 2.2+ which is serious issue in the interceptor
role. But I saw a demonstration of both aircraf turning. It was obvious to
anyone the vast superiority of the Hornet including the ability to fly
vertically.


>・踉&#65533;(B A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison
>flights
>with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them
>and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them" 
>
>Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated
>Press article in late 2001): 
>"Its the same old Hornet shit, repackaged, which was designed to keep
>the politicians happy." 

First time I have heard the Hornet referred to as shit, I wonder if that is
really true. I'm sure he has valid concerns but you have to take comments like
that with a grain of salt. The relationship between the Hornet and the Tomcat is
the same as the Falcon (F16) and Eagle (F15). Any Eagle pilot would be seriously
pissed off having to fly Falcons.  If the Tomcats can't be kept operational then
they are useless but it seems that the USN is losing an important capability and
would have operational implications. Although a sense of reality is needed, who
exactly is going to make a conventaional challenge on US carrier.



>He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's
>long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The
>capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another
>plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You
>look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks
>like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing,
>(...) who thought the Hornet could replace this aviation masterpiece
>rot in hell." 
>

Got to be careful about terms like "predator mystique" and "looks intimidating",
sounds he is talking from the heart a bit too much. "liberal fudge packing",
does he mean that the decision was made by commie leftist Democrats?

Australia has the same problem. The now ancient F-111s are very difficult to
keep operational but there is no possible replacement. The obession with
everything having to be super high tech means we are unable to replace these.
Something like a MIG 23 would be perfect. The idea of the RAAF fyling migs is
hilarious, especially ones called "Flogger".


The new light armour buss thingy the US army is starting to introduce got IS
total shit. The "armour" could be penetrated by a 50 cal or 12.7mm, a 7.62 mm MG
would probably cause it at least come grief and RPG would turn it into a
fireball. It is armed with a robot 7.62mm gun. Being robotic it probably has
good range, but it's not exactly scary. It has wheels so it has a massive
turning circle. All so it can be lifted by a C-130.





.

----
"I went to Japan once, and was very dissapointed in what I saw."
            quote from Japan Today forums.