posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Navy2001
It isn't outclassed, i said without the upgrades it's outclassed, read carefully next time.
Your words: Without the upgrades it's outclassed
Given: Current F/A-18E/F Super Hornets do not field those upgrades
Therefore: Super Hornet operates without the upgrades
Therefore: Super Hornet is outclassed
you'll get the idea that it's not always about the platform (that being the Super Hornet in this case) but the system of which it is. And a
answer like "It's Never Been Good in A2A" is sort of like answering "how long is this plane going to last?", there's many other variables
outside of simply the aircraft's specifications that will determine its effectiveness in combat. Aircraft don't engage in mano e mano gladiatorial
combat, they operate as part of a multi-platform warfighting system.
We stopped discussing different operation systems when people started comparing the A,B,C, and D variants of the F-18 to the Super Hornet variants.
Ever since then, the debate has been about the Super Hornet's value in A2A combat as compared to other American platforms. The logistical support
behind any aircraft by the American administration is always exemplary and the aircraft will perform at their best because of it. If we were comparing
the F-18 specifically to aircraft from Europe, Russia, or other nations then this might be an issue, but that facet left the debate 2 pages ago.
Within one such system, the primary operators of the Super Hornet, the US Navy, appear to have faith in the Super Hornet's ability to perform
in air to air missions.
Which is precisely why they are replacing it
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were. I was just saying that those were the only kills ever credited to a Hornet, either standard, or Super.
Righto. I've been trying to keep my discussion just to the E/F given how different they are compared to the A-Ds. Definitely good to know, though.
Thanks for clearing that up.