I got a good chuckle just now while flipping channels. I stopped on a NatGeo show called "Supercarrier" for a few seconds, just long enough to hear them proclaim that the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is the Navy's most effective strike fighter. Seeing as the only other fighter aircraft the Navy operates these days are variants of the F-18, it seems something of a stupid statement.
Yeah, everyone knows the super hornet is really the least effective, or, at best, most averagely effective strike fighter.
hurr.
Really though, most people seem to hate the hornet. I don't know why, but then again, I think they're cool.
I might actually go so far as to take issue with the term "most effective" while paired with the whole of "strike fighter." The hornet variants were really the first dual role aircraft (fighter and precise attack capability, not fighter-bomber) designed to function that way. The F-14D had precision guided air-to-ground munitions, but yeah... whatever.
Well... The F-14 really only ended up with air-to-ground weapons because it: a) was massive enough to hold ordinance it wasn't really designed to ever hold, b) had a really good radar and guidance package that was pretty easy to get to strike ground targers, and c) they needed to keep it in service long enough that both the Super Hornet could come on line (because the original Hornet was woefully inadaquate to repace the Tomcat) and for the Iranians to run theirs down to nubs, so that most fears of spare parts leaking out could be minimized.
It is pretty much certain now that the F-14 was first not re-ordered, and then pulled from service, is that they were worried about parts getting to the Iranians. No spare parts being made, plus destruction of all useful non-museum craft, pretty much assures that won't happen. That, and Dick Cheney was a big proponent of the F-18, both in his capacity as SecDef, and VP.
i have to take 'no comment' on specific aircraft and capabilities or lack thereof for a bit tho - the Girl works for a major manufacturer of such things, and at a company event last night...... we were offered time in the demo simulators of their latest/upcoming - by someone who knows how to fly the damned things !!!
i do NOT want to be on their bad side, just because they have toys that rock
on other good notes, my just-post-wwII camera is in a localish fedex facility today and there will be a delivery attempt. flipside bad news - instead of rockville, it's getting delivered out of beltsville..... and requires signature..... igh. must_get_home_before_truck_arrives
Nat,
ReplyDeleteI got a good chuckle just now while flipping channels. I stopped on a NatGeo show called "Supercarrier" for a few seconds, just long enough to hear them proclaim that the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is the Navy's most effective strike fighter. Seeing as the only other fighter aircraft the Navy operates these days are variants of the F-18, it seems something of a stupid statement.
- Josh
Yeah, everyone knows the super hornet is really the least effective, or, at best, most averagely effective strike fighter.
ReplyDeletehurr.
Really though, most people seem to hate the hornet. I don't know why, but then again, I think they're cool.
I might actually go so far as to take issue with the term "most effective" while paired with the whole of "strike fighter." The hornet variants were really the first dual role aircraft (fighter and precise attack capability, not fighter-bomber) designed to function that way. The F-14D had precision guided air-to-ground munitions, but yeah... whatever.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteWell... The F-14 really only ended up with air-to-ground weapons because it: a) was massive enough to hold ordinance it wasn't really designed to ever hold, b) had a really good radar and guidance package that was pretty easy to get to strike ground targers, and c) they needed to keep it in service long enough that both the Super Hornet could come on line (because the original Hornet was woefully inadaquate to repace the Tomcat) and for the Iranians to run theirs down to nubs, so that most fears of spare parts leaking out could be minimized.
It is pretty much certain now that the F-14 was first not re-ordered, and then pulled from service, is that they were worried about parts getting to the Iranians. No spare parts being made, plus destruction of all useful non-museum craft, pretty much assures that won't happen. That, and Dick Cheney was a big proponent of the F-18, both in his capacity as SecDef, and VP.
- Josh
I agree with Dick Cheney on something?
ReplyDeleteShould I be worried? Am I becoming a robot?
... is my heart going in danger of popping any day now?
yes, you should be worried about said agreement.
ReplyDeletei have to take 'no comment' on specific aircraft and capabilities or lack thereof for a bit tho - the Girl works for a major manufacturer of such things, and at a company event last night...... we were offered time in the demo simulators of their latest/upcoming - by someone who knows how to fly the damned things !!!
i do NOT want to be on their bad side, just because they have toys that rock
on other good notes, my just-post-wwII camera is in a localish fedex facility today and there will be a delivery attempt. flipside bad news - instead of rockville, it's getting delivered out of beltsville..... and requires signature..... igh. must_get_home_before_truck_arrives
-GMT