Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: End Of The Line For Hornets
SYSOP    3/29/2023 6:13:49 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
davebarnes       3/29/2023 10:55:05 AM
"the navy has 31o single" should 310, zero not letter o
 
Quote    Reply

Gene       3/29/2023 2:55:43 PM
The F-4 Phantom was replaced in the USN by the F-14 Tomcat. Think of a movie named "Top Gun". Tomcats first deployed on USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 1974 and served until the last planes were retired in 2006. Hornets first deployed in 1983, gradually replacing the F-14 due to the Tomcats' high maintenance/operating costs. The Tomcat was faster (Mach 2.3 vs 1.8), but cheaper to operate overall. You'll have to leave to the pilots as to which plane they preferred since there are as many opinions as pilots.
 
Quote    Reply

Toryu88       4/5/2023 10:21:52 AM
Now the navy is putting its collective faith into the ultra expensive F-35 whose cost continues to climb above the $140 million mark per plane. These golden elephants will be flying off of a carrier, the Ford class abortion, that costs twice as much as a Nimitz and only carries 65% of the combat aircraft that the Nimitz did. They are still having major problems with the "new and improved" electrical catapult system. So the Navy is essentially paying ten times the cost for a limited number of aircraft and twice as much for a carrier that can do less than its predecessor. The air force is phasing out a tried and true aircraft, the A-10 born and bred to the ground support mission all because they want to spend all their money on the F-35 putting all their eggs in one basket. They will then use this hyper expensive "fast mover" to move mud for the infantry....not. Everyone knows that the USAF has never liked nor cared for the ground support mission. It took Mohammed to move the mountain that gave the Army helicopters over the USAF objections. So lets put our golden albatross down low where any grunt with a shoulder fired AA missile can kill it. The Pentagon particularly the USAF and the Navy has lost its mind. I know the need for a strong national defense I grew up in the military my dad was a 30 year career NCO. It appears the pentagon is like a cat or a child, overly enamored by bright shiny objects and to paraphrase Jurassic Park's Dr. Malcom, "They are too busy doing stupid things, than asking if they should." There appears to be no thought about a long term war against a peer power. Wars, all wars are wars of attrition. If the only planes left in the sky are old WWII prop jobs and they belong to the enemy because all your golden gooses have been shot down, then they still have air supremacy. And to quote a guy who knew first hand, Irwin Rommel, about what it was like fighting an enemy that possessed air supremacy: “Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.” It seems like the pentagon idiots are in a vacuum and are incapable of learning from history, although they pretend to go through the motions of studying it. One only has to look at Afghanistan. It was a replay of Vietnam in slow motion, taking twenty years to get the same result instead of ten against a similar kind of third world enemy. I really don't think the Pentagon would be capable of winning a future war against a peer enemy power. That excludes Russia, they've proven they are a third world country with nukes.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics