PLANE Stupid

[Misty FAC 3]

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5231/

[+Dave 2,321]

It was a good plane. I saw the last ones come home in May of 2008 with Hrnfixr from thier last sea deployment. I got pics too. I will find them and post them.

[Anthony W. 0]

Aww man... Sad to see such a good airframe go to waste... I hate the Hornet... Makes me pretty sick that someone is trying to take a tiny airframe and adapt it to all these things it probably won't do as well as the specialized aircrafts... It's a good idea for the military, but it's a disaster for the aviation community... Can't they shove an extra tag onto it and make it the RS-3B or the ES-3B, possibly the KS-3B or maybe even the AS-3B... They've done that with tons of others... Stick a ton of ECM equipment in the bomb bay and put a couple of HARMs or whatever they use now on outside pylons and have it replace the EA-6B... That bird could still do many things way better than the Hornet... Farewell to another amazing and still useful airframe...

[DWCAce 19]

Already had the ES-3, and I think there were plans for a KS-3...

[commander 0]

I hate the modern philosophy of 1 item many uses, or the jack of all trades. i much prefer having multiple aircraft assigned for at most 2-3 jobs, depending on the airframe (Cept the C-130 those hercs can do almost anything, airlift, tanker, bomber (daisy cutter, moab) and rescue.)

[Chaser617 0]

Wait, if they're retiring the Viking, what's taking its place as a ASW/Sea Control Platform?

[firehawkordy 34]

Aww man... Sad to see such a good airframe go to waste... I hate the Hornet... Makes me pretty sick that someone is trying to take a tiny airframe and adapt it to all these things it probably won't do as well as the specialized aircrafts... It's a good idea for the military, but it's a disaster for the aviation community... Can't they shove an extra tag onto it and make it the RS-3B or the ES-3B, possibly the KS-3B or maybe even the AS-3B... They've done that with tons of others... Stick a ton of ECM equipment in the bomb bay and put a couple of HARMs or whatever they use now on outside pylons and have it replace the EA-6B... That bird could still do many things way better than the Hornet... Farewell to another amazing and still useful airframe...

 

The airframe served it's purpose,even with a SLEP they are high time birds,it's time has come. Anthony, they did make an ES version and a COD version but the C-2 carries more payload and the EA-6B was better suited to the EW mission. As for the refueling role, thats what they make "buddy" stores for. Sad to see it go but the world and times change and so does the mission of NAVAIR.

 

Next to go is the Prowler, looks like all the birds with the exception of the Hornet and Hawkeye, that I worked on or around now reside in museums and petting zoos

[gbnavy61 1]

Wait, if they're retiring the Viking, what's taking its place as a ASW/Sea Control Platform?

 

H-60s.

[Guest ruhzyo]

<salute>

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

commander::

I hate the modern philosophy of 1 item many uses, or the jack of all trades.

Actually, post-modern. I stopped paying attention to post-modern military stuff years ago. But my basic guess here is:

 

(1) No longer any real competition out there from any other nation, which means....

 

(2) No resources need be spent on developing and operating dedicated aircraft.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

er um...or that's my guess as to the thinking behind it all, or the rationalization for budget cuts maybe.

[Anthony W. 0]

I hate the modern philosophy of 1 item many uses, or the jack of all trades. i much prefer having multiple aircraft assigned for at most 2-3 jobs, depending on the airframe (Cept the C-130 those hercs can do almost anything, airlift, tanker, bomber (daisy cutter, moab) and rescue.)

 

You forgot to mention direct attack and close air support and.... HELL, I CAN LIST WAY WAY MORE EXAMPLES! Carrier born cargo(

) sea plane research aircraft, intercept(CONCEPT UNDER DEVELOPMENT), arctic transport, civilian cargo, super STOL aircraft(Operation Credible Sport), ect... The C-130 was a once in a generation airframe. Edited February 3, 2009 by Anthony W.

[commander 0]

BUT ITS NO FUN

[Rambler 1-1 9]

It's a good thing the navy is getting a new Lockheed plane, otherwise they'd only be flying choppers and variants of the F-18, which, by the way, is built by an AIRLINER company. I don't care if it was designed by Northrop, the fact is that Lockheed will always have a special place as a fighter company, no matter how much boeing may dominate the airline industry.

 

Nothing against the F-18, it's a great plane, but COME ON. You can't expect it to constitute the entire navy air wing. I know it's economic and what not, but to tell the truth, I've been sore ever since the hornette replaced the Tomcat.

[column5 63]

Nothing against the F-18, it's a great plane, but COME ON. You can't expect it to constitute the entire navy air wing. I know it's economic and what not, but to tell the truth, I've been sore ever since the hornette replaced the Tomcat.

 

That's what bothers me: the Hornet (A and C models) was a great light strike aircraft with good self-defense capability. The Supa Hornet is a bomb truck and I guess there will always be a place for that, but it seems that the Navy has ceeded responsibility for obtaining and maintaining air superiority to the USAF, which is the only American service with true fighter aircraft anymore (F-15, F-22 and even F-16 to a lesser extent are all superior in the pure A2A arena to the Hornet). I assume this is by design, but it seems shortsighted with the rooskies actively arming our potential enemies with their latest fighters.

[gbnavy61 1]

What the Navy really needs in a new Grumman fighter (hurts to say this part...) or strike-fighter (...oww). Not enough Grumman stuff on the flight deck anymore.

 

Yeah, I also have a beef with the whole Jack of all trades concept: what if you have some critical failure of components? Your entire fleet is grounded until it's fixed. Sounds like a dumb security arrangement to me. Sure, the odds of such a calamity are low, but it is possible. It's all about the bucks nowadays. Nobody wants to spend a million bucks on a missile anymore - or $40 million on a kick-ass plane to carry them everywhere. Sad really.

[column5 63]

What the Navy really needs in a new Grumman fighter (hurts to say this part...) or strike-fighter (...oww). Not enough Grumman stuff on the flight deck anymore.

 

Too bad we allowed our defense industry to merge and then crumble to the point where Grum--er, Northrop-Grumman can no longer design and build aircraft from the ground up, and Boeing and Lockheed are the only players left.

[gbnavy61 1]

Well, C5, if you look at the history of US Naval Aviation, you can see in WWII we got away from the concept of a pure fighter. Deck space is limited, so F4Fs were replaced by better fighters - F6Fs and F4Us. But, those new fighters could also perform the strike mission. Early in the war, a carrier had about 25% fighters, and the other 75% was dive bombers and torpedo bombers. By war's end it was 75% fighters and 25% others. Fighters started to do more of the heavy lifting while increasing the capabilities of the airwing to first, get air superiority and then, support the Marines hitting the beaches.

 

So, I don't think you can have a Navy fighter nowadays that is just a pure fighter. It doesn't make sense. However, I do believe you can have a great fighter that is a decent strike platform, in favor of having a bunch of great strike aircraft who double as adequate fighters.

 

Hornets are superb strike aircraft, but I'd still rather see a better fighter hit the fleet.

[gbnavy61 1]

Too bad we allowed our defense industry to merge and then crumble to the point where Grum--er, Northrop-Grumman can no longer design and build aircraft from the ground up, and Boeing and Lockheed are the only players left.

 

Indeed. There's too few players, and as a result, too few new ideas coming down the pipe. Not enough competition anymore.

Edited February 3, 2009 by gbnavy61

[column5 63]

Well, C5, if you look at the history of US Naval Aviation, you can see in WWII we got away from the concept of a pure fighter. Deck space is limited, so F4Fs were replaced by better fighters - F6Fs and F4Us. But, those new fighters could also perform the strike mission. Early in the war, a carrier had about 25% fighters, and the other 75% was dive bombers and torpedo bombers. By war's end it was 75% fighters and 25% others. Fighters started to do more of the heavy lifting while increasing the capabilities of the airwing to first, get air superiority and then, support the Marines hitting the beaches.

 

True, but from about 1957 to 1975 the Navy also had one of the world's premier fighters on its decks--the F-8--with only a token attack capability. Then the F-14 came online which until the late 1980s was also a pure fighter. So there was a pretty long period where the Navy could show up at a fight with an indigenous air superiority capability.

[Viper6 3]

F-14 purpose was fleet defender no more long range cruise missle carrying bombers so cat go bye bye. no more real air threats to carriers so hornet mission changes to whatever and she saves space so more can fit in the carrier. budget cuts? yes but hey we all have felt the pinch even the military take a look at russia when you spend too much on one thing the rest suffer (economy)

Edited February 3, 2009 by Viper6

[+Dave 2,321]

Good points all around. I think entire wings of just strike fighters isn't too bright as far as fleet defense is concerned. Is the day of big rolling dog fights over? I do not think so. The USAF is making sure we have air superiority with the F-22. But its seems like the Navy doesn't take the threat to is carriers as serious anymore. If the Navy hasn't been paying attention, the Ruskies have a started strategic patrols again. So I think even in today's eniroment a fleet defender is still important.

[+Dave 2,321]

F-14 purpose was fleet defender no more long range cruise missle carrying bombers so cat go bye bye. no more real air threats to carriers so hornet mission changes to whatever and she saves space so more can fit in the carrier. budget cuts? yes but hey we all have felt the pinch even the military take a look at russia when you spend too much on oen thing the rest suffer (economy)

 

I 100% disagree, just last year before I got to WPAFB when I was working in AWAC's the Russians were flying full time patrols near the US and many carriers. I lost count of the scrambles we had. 8 years ago your statement was true but now it is not. The Russians are pouring money into their long range bombers and sea patrol aircraft.

[Sakai 2]

I tend to agree with all of you. The ruskies are, and have been, constantly developing their missile and aerospace technology. They are coming out with some ridiculously long range AAMs to take out AWACS and Tanker aircraft in order to cripple western ability to project power using the air. Even the F-22 is vulnerable when it's out of gas. And their A-G and Anti-Ship capability hasn't slouched either. Having no indegenous fighter/intercepters on deck could prove fatal for a US carrier in the near future if our enemy is well equiped. Sure, the super bug can carry a crap load of AMRAAMS, but unless they are already in the air, their missiles dont have the range to defend the carrier "off the deck". I slept alot better when their were tomcats and AIM-54's sailing off shore!

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

With regard to the Cats attack capabilities, the D model could carry more, further and faster than the Bug. This is a capability that was built into the airframe from day one and just not implemented until the twighlight of her career, there would have been an argument to use the Cat as an A-6 replacement leaving the Bug to do what it was designed for... light strike and second tier air defence.

 

Craig