Ah it's not that bad. It does it's job. Not as well as some new A4's would have though.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??
- Thread starter Morgan81
- Start date
Ah it's not that bad. It does it's job. Not as well as some new A4's would have though.
Or the TF-18 that they could have built for a fraction of the cost. Instead, they have to keep dumping more money in the T-45 to make it more like the F-18...
another good article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10tanker.html?hp
I don't know how senators and congressmen can act with such mock outrage whenever something like this will effect their ability to garner votes...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10tanker.html?hp
I don't know how senators and congressmen can act with such mock outrage whenever something like this will effect their ability to garner votes...
Ya, but whats cheaper in the long run:
1.) a 25 million dollar jet that burns 2400 #'s of gas per sortie over ~20 years
2.) a 25 million dollar jet that burns 10,000 #'s of gas per SHORTER sortie over ~ 20 years (which has higher maint. and operating costs as well).
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
There are other factors..
TF-18, would have been a bit lighter. Burn less gas.
Economies of scale. Using the same motor in a lot of jets makes rebuilding each one cheaper.
RAG for hornet types could possibly be shorter. Since its the same base airframe. Some savings there.
Oh, and by the way, the TF-18 would anthro-out a lot less SNAs than the T-45 does, giving us a better talent pool to draw from.
Gas is cheap, compared to some of the other factors.
TF-18, would have been a bit lighter. Burn less gas.
Economies of scale. Using the same motor in a lot of jets makes rebuilding each one cheaper.
RAG for hornet types could possibly be shorter. Since its the same base airframe. Some savings there.
Oh, and by the way, the TF-18 would anthro-out a lot less SNAs than the T-45 does, giving us a better talent pool to draw from.
Gas is cheap, compared to some of the other factors.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Glass cockpit TA-4Ks would have been awesome.
Eh, I am not sure the TF-18 would have been as cheap as MD said it would be....it was just a proposal. Who is to say that it would have not had the same cost overruns that many other programs have had? And I know that some of the earler Hornets are G-limited because of fatigue issues, the VMFA(AW) we were with in Iwakuni had two in their squadron. I imagine the same thing would be the case in the TF-18.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
3.) ...
Wow. A division+ low level strike with centerline tanks and live ordnance! I must have missed that event in flight school.
Awesome picture though. They never should have gotten rid of the Scooter.
ACTUALLY ... as STUDs we flew 4-plane armed "G" routes (low level = G stage) which morphed into an "I" or "K" stage (I ...or.. K stage (?) = weapons (?)) whereupon the flight would hit on Yankee or Dixie targets w/ 20mm's, 2.75 FFAR's, and Mk76's at the end of the low level.Wow. A division+ low level strike with centerline tanks and live ordnance! I must have missed that event in flight school.
Awesome picture though. They never should have gotten rid of the Scooter.
VERY realistic training and tons o' fun until .... some STUD shot a big ol' bull through-and-through w/ a 2.75 FFAR... good hit !!!
.... which, of course, morphed into a "prize" Santa Gertrudis bull ($$$$) and was dumped unceremoniously @ the front gate @ NAS. The painting -- a big one -- hung in the O' Club bar @ NAS Kingsville and another @ NAS Chase for years and years ...
I haven't been following this thread very closely but I did see this video today on CNN. Didn't see it posted.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/po...yre.pelosi.mccain.tanker.cnn?iref=videosearch
Those jets are OLD and were not managed for flight life expectancy. Nobody flies any G-limited hornets. I have flown Lot 8-11 jets my entire Hornet career (almost the oldest jets still in existence that are still flying), and I have never flown a jet that was G-limited.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Navy planes have a lot more to put up with.. (corrosion, traps, cat shots)