4 ms·
> the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers This seems an inadequate and/or overly-simplified explanation. T
by nknighthb 13y ago
> the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers
This seems an inadequate and/or overly-simplified explanation. The F-14 was a beast, far heavier than the F-35 or, for that matter, the A-6. And that was 1960s technology. Surely now we could build a capable, carrier-launched ground-attack craft with weight comparable to an F-14?
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y agowe did. The F14B ;)
- greedo 13y agoYep, I loved the Bombcat. Oh, and we also flew the A-5 Vigilante, which was huge. Heck, we've even had C-130 Hercules to take off and landings on a CV.
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y agoThanks for reminding me of the A-5, I completely forgot it!
- nknighthb 13y agoI was thinking in terms of something designed from the start for ground-attack/bombing, but my point is that the Navy can't possibly think it needs the same lightweight fighters the Air Force wants just because they operate from carriers, since they spent >35 years running a big-ass plane off carriers. (For that matter, there were the C-130 tests on a carrier, which was probably pushing the bounds of good sense, but it did work.)
- jloughry 13y agoWe did. See the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber, a design that never flew [1]. [1] Stevenson, James P. The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2001. ISBN 1-55750-777-5.