Fly Navy said:
What about the Air Force???
-
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
F-14 and F/A-18E
- Thread starter Piperpilot2004
- Start date
- Status
What about the Air Force???
Fly Navy said:
The official Marine line is an EW variant of the JSF.
Of course, since the Navy will be giving the Marines the EA-6B's as we IOC the EA-18G, they should have enough jets to last till 2040 or so.
Jarhead,
With all the D's going reserves so the Corp can put more C's on the boat, I wouldn't worry about flying the Rhino. BTW, in answer to your first question, both will fry.
There is a lot more to the S-3 getting beached than just growing old --- as I'm sure you are aware. If that was it -- there would be a follow-on platform for the original ASW/SSC mission or many, many "mods" to keep the S-3 airborne. And S-3 tanking mission? It evolved as the other tanking assets were diminished permanently and the original S-3 mission was fading. I won't say I agree with the call, but I don't count the beans -- and "they" didn't ask me. It is too bad "they" didn't convert some S-3's to a permanent tanking role -- it's a good platform for it, ala the KA-3 Whale conversion.HooverPilot said:
Buddy stores "ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE" , you say ???
O.K., Hoover, whatever you say. Different Navy, different buddy stores. We probably had a 50% reliability rate with buddy stores -- which was why the KA-6D's were like gold in the sky to CAG -- buddy stores on A-7's or A-6's would not cut it. But I am sure while my stores were purchased at the local Mom & Pop, yours were acquired throught the Cadillac dealer. Different time, different stores, as I said, "historically" unreliable. Sheesn, gotta watch my wording more carefully, maybe I should have said .... "were". :icon_mi_1 Everything else you said was right on (you probably think all of it, right
?). The nuggets have no clue as to the AirWing importance of airborne fuel. They will ... and the hot-shot "fighter pilots" will also learn the side benefit of extra traps, flight time, and "respect" that comes from being reliable enough to be the last guy down the chute at night.Oh, yeah, so everyone understands ---a single-seat tanker will never be as efficient or safe as two heads and eyes. What's the most dangerous evolution at the ship ? Try "hawking the aircraft on the ball" on a black, black night and you'll learn the answer really quick ...
Your whole post: Good insight -- WELL SAID ...USN99 said:
don't know how the squids are doing it, but a FAC(A) training syllabus for single seat Marine Corps Hornets is in the works, should be implemented soon. can't wait, WSO's say it can't be done by single seaters, yet air farce A-10's & F-16's have been doing it for years ....
It doesn't mean they do it well. The Air Force has always had an aversion to Nav's and anything without a pointy nose. They would rather look cool than do the right thing sometimes. Just look at what happened with Wild Weasels, they go from a two seat F-4G with a sophisticated and integrated SEAD system to an F-16 with a pod, and lost a lot of capability in the process.
also, i talked with a SH dude a few months ago that said the next Lot of SH's will have a weapons employment switch in the back for the WSO's to use? any word on that? when that happens, who buys the bombs if they hit the wrong target? the PIC or the WSO who dropped them? hmm, i'll stick to single seat ...
Afraid of a FO showing you up? Or is it just a control thing?
how much more gas does the E have over the F? i'll take the extra gas anyday, IMO
Why don't we just get rid of the pilot altogether so we have even more gas? I am a firm believer of the saying "two heads is better than one". Of course I am biased, I am a FO, while you are just a FAG (Fighter Attack Guy).
It doesn't mean they do it well. The Air Force has always had an aversion to Nav's and anything without a pointy nose. They would rather look cool than do the right thing sometimes. Just look at what happened with Wild Weasels, they go from a two seat F-4G with a sophisticated and integrated SEAD system to an F-16 with a pod, and lost a lot of capability in the process.
also, i talked with a SH dude a few months ago that said the next Lot of SH's will have a weapons employment switch in the back for the WSO's to use? any word on that? when that happens, who buys the bombs if they hit the wrong target? the PIC or the WSO who dropped them? hmm, i'll stick to single seat ...
Afraid of a FO showing you up? Or is it just a control thing?
how much more gas does the E have over the F? i'll take the extra gas anyday, IMO
Why don't we just get rid of the pilot altogether so we have even more gas? I am a firm believer of the saying "two heads is better than one". Of course I am biased, I am a FO, while you are just a FAG (Fighter Attack Guy).
VetteMuscle427 said:
The AF does not have their own tactical EA aircraft. They use our EA-6Bs. They are messing with a EB-52 and EB-1 so I hear though, but that seems more strategic to me. Of course, an EB-52 would put out a RETARDED amount of energy.
I know that the operational costs of the F-14 per hour are to the tune of $7,800. It certainly is no Geo Metro. I would be curious as to the OP costs of a rhino. Compare those two, and I think you'll have your answer as to why the Aluminum Cloud is heading out in a hurry.
Ryoukai
The Chief doesn't like cheeky humor...at all
[thread jack] With all the talk of the Marines getting things second hand from the Navy, the question popped into my mind; why is that? Why does it seem that, as far as aircraft go, the Marines get all the second string planes (read: F/A-18A) What the dilly, yo? [/thread jack]
Ryoukai said:
Not true.
OK, some (not all) Marine Squadrons have F/A-18A's. On my 2003 cruise, VMFA-314 had the latest and greatest Block 18 Hornets while the Navy guys had a mix of Blocks 11/14/15.
When the Block 89A Prowler came along, the Marines got to replace all their old Block 82's before the Navy Block 89's were replaced.
This may have been true when the Marines were flying Brewster Buffalo's off Wake Island but they got they F4U before the Navy and haven't looked back since. The Marines flew F-8s, A-6s, F-4s right along with the Navy. The Corp even flew the ultimate A-4 in US service, the OA-4M.
Like was mentioned before, budgetary decisions are made in the Beltway. If the Marines want JSF and V-22 (and they do) then the development money has to come from somewhere. Upgrades and replacement of older airframes with newer ones is just a lower priority for the $$$.
Marines typically do things on the cheap. They'll wait until all the OT&E is done and the bugs worked out before they commit funds. They've done this throughout the upgrade history of the Prowler, and they'll probably do it with the E/F/G model Hornets. As a tertiary air component, they can afford to do this.
Brett
Brett
Brett327 said:
Unfortunatly true, but it seemed they never had the $$$$ that USN had. Look at Kaneohe today. I was always C-R-A-P (ever since the '50's -- when we lived nearby) until some of the Navy P-3 $$$ flowed Windward with the closing of Barber's Point. At least they did the best with what they had .... and sometimes it wasn't much. The situation is better today, I understand (the TacAir "merge with USN" ? ).
In the past the USMC got USN hand-off's, at least in the TacAir community. I waved a Marine F-4 and an A-6 squadron @ Cubi to take them to the ship for their initial CQ. Their A/C were uniformly in sad, very sad shape. When we traded our A-6E's for their A-6A's, my first A-6A test-hop resulted in an inflight fire in the landing pattern.
It was the first of two such occurences with their aircraft.
BTW, has anyone besides myself noticed what good information is flowing from this thread ?? Good discussions -- somewhat more informative and enjoyable than the ephemeral comparisons of fat girls in Kingsville --- or pimples in PreFlight, et'al :icon_wink
- Status