Raptor gets it's baptism of fire in Syria?

a reply to: aholic

Careful with that one. They may get cranky about that. I haven't seen that one in awhile.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm just sayin'......

a reply to: aholic

Weird.... There was a video or a picture that was posted here awhile back of an unidentified aircraft (I think it was a video of a flyover) and the plane looked exactly like one of those airframes. Of course, now I can't find it anywhere. It looked like the one in the right hand column, 3rd up from the bottom.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Help me out. I might be able to dig it up.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The top two on the right hand column (-122 & -123) look a familiar planform to some "interesting" flyover pics too!!

a reply to: JimTSpock

America has a massive nuclear weapons arsenal and could never be defeated like Germany in WW2.

Of course nowadays every superpower has that same "ace" in the hole.

Plenty of room in this bird for some nice optics?

The interior layout, shown on inboard profile drawing ASC 988-122-2, provides sufficient room for all
functional systems and features required. Principal features are the deep (approximately 15% t/c)
center section for weapons bay, fuel tankage, crew station and equipment installations, include 30mm
gun system installation

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's also a lot better at both missions than you want to give it credit for.

Except when it has to pickle its load early to face a fighter threat. I remember hearing about that on occasion.

It doesn't have the range, speed or climb rate, let alone standoff Phoenix equivalent the Tomcat had. It lacks the payload or low level penetration ability of the Intruder.

It is carrier based and a compromise to be part of ann asset that projects force around the world. Unlike land based bombers and fighters that each fulfill dedicated roles in support of a strike package, the FA 18 has to compromise and do both.

Nice chatting with you as usual Zaphod, see ya on the boards.

That's all pretty much wrong. The obsolete A-6 intruder is subsonic with no air to air weapons, if it encountered an enemy fighter jettison stores and try to run subsonically. The Hornet can carry air to air missiles as well as air to ground stores and is supersonic, it can engage enemy fighters and defend itself if challenged. The Hornet has automatic terrain following at 200ft so it does low level and has PGM capability as well as SEAD capability with the AGM-88 HARM, and anti-ship capability with the AGM-84 Harpoon. Much more capable and versatile than the ancient A-6 Intruder. For air to air it is more agile than the F-14 Tomcat, has a higher rate of climb and higher thrust to weight ratio, however doesn't have as powerful a radar or carry the AIM-54 Phoenix. It can carry up to 10 AIM-120 AMRAAMS which is a lot. So actually it does all the ground attack and strike extremely well and can carry a big air to air load and can do both air to air and air to ground on the same mission. I've flown it in a few simulators and it is an awesome jet. Range is not bad for a plane that size and it can carry up to 3 drop tanks and do inflight refuelling.

a reply to: gfad

That was a manned platform that never made it far off paper. It looks superficially similar to some other aircraft though.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Range has always been the biggest problem with the Hornet family. One of the missions it only has about a 320 nm range from the ship. Every pilot I ever talked to said, "It's a damn good airplane, but....", and brought up the range issue.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Other aircraft from the same manufacturer or perhaps another?

Thanks all for the clarification and info. Sorry for drifting the topic.

a reply to: gfad

Oh pretty much any flying wing design. Lol.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Compared to other multi-role jets such as the F-16 it isn't too bad. 320nm with no tanks is a little short. In one of my sims the F-16C block 50 with 3 tanks got about 900nm radius flying as high as possible. The Hornet seems to get the job done though, but carrier ops do stretch the endurance.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Oh it gets the job done, it's just more tanker reliant than other aircraft in the same class are.

The combat radius is wholly dependent on the mission. I believe the 320 radius was a pair of A2A, and a pair of ASMs. If they stay within 250 nm, in a BARCAP role, they can stay on station something like two hours, roughly. In the standard strike configuration, they're around 450-500 nm, going from memory, it might be a little farther. I think standard strike was fairly close to the Viper when it came to combat radius.

a reply to: crazyewok

Really? REALLY?

My you are a slippery one aren't you. LOL

So following your premise through to the end, NATO and the U.S. had nothing to do with preventing the Soviet Union from expanding it's empire by moving into western Europe? That the Soviets wouldn't have moved westward even without a U.S. presence?

That's where your logic goes. Sorry, but I can't buy into it.

As the U.S. has been shrinking it's military, the Russians, Chinese and Indians have been building theirs. Your answer is to continue the U.S. contraction militarily?

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's right range really depends on stores, drag factor, speed and flight profile. The more stuff and lower and faster the lower the range. Also using the burner.

You might like this. 700 pages of F-16 Fighting Falcon flight manual.

www.f-16.net...

originally posted by: [post=18459416]nwtrucker So far it has been nothing but innuendo from you, so forgive my yawns but unless you can come up with something a little more tangible my views will not change.....

Heck your views don't mean a jack to me

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Really? REALLY?

My you are a slippery one aren't you. LOL

So following your premise through to the end, NATO and the U.S. had nothing to do with preventing the Soviet Union from expanding it's empire by moving into western Europe? That the Soviets wouldn't have moved westward even without a U.S. presence?

That's where your logic goes. Sorry, but I can't buy into it.

As the U.S. has been shrinking it's military, the Russians, Chinese and Indians have been building theirs. Your answer is to continue the U.S. contraction militarily?

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

I think you misunderstand.

Yes the US military + NATO prevented a move form the Russians into any country were the USA had a military presence.

BUT

Anywhere the USA did not seemed to be free game.



And the that principle still apply s. Russia has not touched anywhere that has a USA military presence.


Ukraine that you keep bringing up NEVER had a US military presence and is NOT part of NATO.


Putin had NOT made a single move into Western or NATO controlled Europe.

Only Ukriane that has no and NEVER had a US military presence.


My premise is that yes the USA and NATO military HAS protected the western Europe from Russian Expansion. And that to day even with reduced military it STILL is protecting western/ NATO Europe.

Ukraine? It was dead even if the USA had 10X the power in western Europe as the USA and NATO was NEVER going to risk WW3 over such a insignificant NON NATO country. The same as the USA at the hight of its military power in the 1980's NEVER risked WW3 over the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

No way guys, it *has* to be one of these ugly ducklings!



LMFAO!