5 ms·

>When you need the absolute best for something, you need to specialize. It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the engineer in the video on the F/A-18

by phaus 12y ago

>When you need the absolute best for something, you need to specialize. It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the engineer in the video on the F/A-18. From what I've read about the Joint Strike Fighter project, from which the F-35 was borne, it seems like they were trying to recreate and expand upon the success and versatility of the F/A-18. I've always heard that the F/A-18 is one of the most useful planes in our arsenal, but it isn't highly specialized to one specific purpose. As far as the F-35 goes, it seems like its yet another example where America is perfectly capable of building something better* than the rest of the world has, if it weren't for all of the corrupt politicians that are willing to trade real progress for personal gain. *not that we are inherently better than everyone, its just that we poured an enormous amount of resources into this project

Tloewald 12y ago
Agreed. He was pretty down on the F15, which has proved pretty effective (if expensive). The F18 isn't VTOL, or "stealth", and isn't touted as an A10 replacement, so it's not completely insane. That said, it's hard to measure the effectiveness of most US aircraft because they've never been operated in truly competitive conditions (the best measure is of aircraft which the israeli's use, since israel has often fought russian proxies such as Syria with late model aircraft and "advisors". By that measure, the F15 and F16 are unparalelled. The israelis don't use the F18 iirc, which says something.
- Retric 12y ago
  The F16 cost about 1/2 what an F15 cost. In the end the F16 allowed the F15 to be more focused which was a huge net win. The crazy thing is the close air support and bomber roles are much better suited for drone aircraft so at least one of it's missions is pure BS from the start.
  - pandemicsyn 12y ago
    I don't think CAS stuff is well suited for drones (at least not the current stuff). You want lots of ordnance and you want the forward observer on the ground to not have to talk to someone possibly 100's of miles away right? Also, I don't know that I buy that the drone pilot has the same local/situational awareness that a pilot sitting in an A-10/Apache does.
    - thetinguy 12y ago
      Why? The drone pilot has been flying around that area for much longer than the A10. He is a fully trained pilot as well, except he has fantastic cameras and doesn't really have to worry about dying. I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of remotely piloted aircraft.
      - pandemicsyn 12y ago
        You could definitely be right. Whats the latency like for drone control? Is latency low enough that fast low altitude/tight terrain flight isn't a problem? Guess you could always turn something like a AC-130 into a drone too.
    - akira2501 12y ago
      Also, isn't that one of the yet unrealized capabilities of a drone? You can have a control unit embedded with the forward observer so they can directly control the drone. Depending on their design you could have them land at the nearest FOB or directly at the line and re-arm it as desired.
  - ericd 12y ago
    Honestly, I'm not sure why drones aren't considered better for air superiority as well - better power to weight ratio, no human-imposed G limits, probably better maneuverability due to better wing area to weight ratio, potential for 360 degree vision, and without needing to worried about losing highly trained pilots, you could also explore making many more cheap drones that are individually inferior but collectively superior.
    - JPKab 12y ago
      The dirty little secret in the USAF is that everyone knows drones are superior for fighters because of the human imposed G limit being removed, but its an organization run by former pilots and they hate the idea. This is also why they require drone operators to be actual pilots despite the fact that there is zero need for that level of training. Its just a way to protect their idols.
      - ericd 12y ago
        Hm, that's frustrating. I wonder if that's true in all countries.
    - Noxchi 12y ago
      What about EMPs or communication attacks?
      - ericd 12y ago
        Why would a normal jet fare any better in an EMP attack than a drone? Communication attacks, maybe, but there's no reason you couldn't have some limited level of autonomy to bring it back home automatically in the event of a comms failure.
        Elhana 12y ago
        Because if your enemy can simply ground your fighter fleet with a communication attack, you are just asking for a Pearl Harbor 2
fafner 12y ago
The F/A-18 is designed by Boeing. The F-35 as well as the F-22 are designed by Lockheed.
- commandar 12y ago
  It's built by Boeing. It was designed jointly by McDonnel Douglas and Northrop and is an evolution of the earlier Northrop YF-17 which competed against the F-16 in the Lightweight Fighter Program. The YF-17, in turn, was actually an evolution of the even earlier Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter. Not trying to be a pedant, honestly. The F/A-18 just has a fairly interesting design heritage, and that heritage is pretty much entirely outside of Boeing. They're just the ones that ended up with the production after industry consolidation.
poof131 12y ago
As a former F/A-18 pilot, we were the jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. It does make some sense on an aircraft carrier with a limited number of planes, but even then there was talk of having two of the four squadrons specialize in air-to-air and two in air-to-ground. The problem: who doesn't want to fly combat missions into Iraq and Afghanistan? At the end of the day, I generally recognized that the F-15C pilot was going to be better at air-to-air, the A-10 or F-15E pilots better at air-to-ground. The F-16 pilots more jack-of-all-trade types (excluding CJs) with a slightly better aircraft that can't land on the boat. And the F-14 pilots better at drinking in the bar. I also think the general consensus when I left a couple years back was that the F35 is a turd. Probably a better turd then anything else out there (excluding maybe the F-22), but not worth the price, and riddled with flaws. General's and Admiral's, however, put pressure on anyone who even thought of speaking negatively about the program. If the saying goes: "Arm-chair generals study tactics, real generals study logistics," then our current crop of General's and Admiral's forgot the part about only "morons putting all their eggs in one basket." This is exactly what the JSF is: a basketful of eggs ready to break. Unfortunately, the defense industry has gotten so totally out of control that we can't afford anything it provides. Pretty soon we will have 1 super tank, plane, submarine weapon thingy. The exit from senior military positions into the defense industry has created an awful supplier of tools to the troops. Our own leaders are so self-interested that they can't even recognize a problem: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/12/26/defe... But the problem of this implicit corruption extends way beyond defense, just look at the banks and the treasury. We need some sort of '5 year hiatus', where after serving in a senior position of government, individuals can't join a corporation that does over X revenue with the branch of government that person just left for 5 years. No more hiring for the roledex or as payback for deeds done while in government. Serve in government to serve, not for the payday afterwards
- moe 12y ago
  We need some sort of '5 year hiatus' That's sadly unlikely to help, as can be seen in countries where such regulations are in place. The culprits simply delay the payment or move to alternate forms of compensation (e.g. arranging for a well-compensated 'job' for a close family member...).
stcredzero 12y ago
I've always heard that the F/A-18 is one of the most useful planes in our arsenal, but it isn't highly specialized to one specific purpose. The original design came from the same competition that gave us the F-16. High manuverability, high thrust aircraft are fundamentally versatile, especially when you put advanced avionics in them.

by phaus 12y ago

Tloewald 12y ago

Agreed. He was pretty down on the F15, which has proved pretty effective (if expensive). The F18 isn't VTOL, or "stealth", and isn't touted as an A10 replacement, so it's not completely insane. That said, it's hard to measure the effectiveness of most US aircraft because they've never been operated in truly competitive conditions (the best measure is of aircraft which the israeli's use, since israel has often fought russian proxies such as Syria with late model aircraft and "advisors". By that measure, the F15 and F16 are unparalelled. The israelis don't use the F18 iirc, which says something.

Retric 12y ago
The F16 cost about 1/2 what an F15 cost. In the end the F16 allowed the F15 to be more focused which was a huge net win. The crazy thing is the close air support and bomber roles are much better suited for drone aircraft so at least one of it's missions is pure BS from the start.
- pandemicsyn 12y ago
  I don't think CAS stuff is well suited for drones (at least not the current stuff). You want lots of ordnance and you want the forward observer on the ground to not have to talk to someone possibly 100's of miles away right? Also, I don't know that I buy that the drone pilot has the same local/situational awareness that a pilot sitting in an A-10/Apache does.
  - thetinguy 12y ago
    Why? The drone pilot has been flying around that area for much longer than the A10. He is a fully trained pilot as well, except he has fantastic cameras and doesn't really have to worry about dying. I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of remotely piloted aircraft.
    - pandemicsyn 12y ago
      You could definitely be right. Whats the latency like for drone control? Is latency low enough that fast low altitude/tight terrain flight isn't a problem? Guess you could always turn something like a AC-130 into a drone too.
  - akira2501 12y ago
    Also, isn't that one of the yet unrealized capabilities of a drone? You can have a control unit embedded with the forward observer so they can directly control the drone. Depending on their design you could have them land at the nearest FOB or directly at the line and re-arm it as desired.
- ericd 12y ago
  Honestly, I'm not sure why drones aren't considered better for air superiority as well - better power to weight ratio, no human-imposed G limits, probably better maneuverability due to better wing area to weight ratio, potential for 360 degree vision, and without needing to worried about losing highly trained pilots, you could also explore making many more cheap drones that are individually inferior but collectively superior.
  - JPKab 12y ago
    The dirty little secret in the USAF is that everyone knows drones are superior for fighters because of the human imposed G limit being removed, but its an organization run by former pilots and they hate the idea. This is also why they require drone operators to be actual pilots despite the fact that there is zero need for that level of training. Its just a way to protect their idols.
    - ericd 12y ago
      Hm, that's frustrating. I wonder if that's true in all countries.
  - Noxchi 12y ago
    What about EMPs or communication attacks?
    - ericd 12y ago
      Why would a normal jet fare any better in an EMP attack than a drone? Communication attacks, maybe, but there's no reason you couldn't have some limited level of autonomy to bring it back home automatically in the event of a comms failure.
      - Elhana 12y ago
        Because if your enemy can simply ground your fighter fleet with a communication attack, you are just asking for a Pearl Harbor 2

fafner 12y ago

The F/A-18 is designed by Boeing. The F-35 as well as the F-22 are designed by Lockheed.

commandar 12y ago
It's built by Boeing. It was designed jointly by McDonnel Douglas and Northrop and is an evolution of the earlier Northrop YF-17 which competed against the F-16 in the Lightweight Fighter Program. The YF-17, in turn, was actually an evolution of the even earlier Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter. Not trying to be a pedant, honestly. The F/A-18 just has a fairly interesting design heritage, and that heritage is pretty much entirely outside of Boeing. They're just the ones that ended up with the production after industry consolidation.

poof131 12y ago

As a former F/A-18 pilot, we were the jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. It does make some sense on an aircraft carrier with a limited number of planes, but even then there was talk of having two of the four squadrons specialize in air-to-air and two in air-to-ground. The problem: who doesn't want to fly combat missions into Iraq and Afghanistan? At the end of the day, I generally recognized that the F-15C pilot was going to be better at air-to-air, the A-10 or F-15E pilots better at air-to-ground. The F-16 pilots more jack-of-all-trade types (excluding CJs) with a slightly better aircraft that can't land on the boat. And the F-14 pilots better at drinking in the bar. I also think the general consensus when I left a couple years back was that the F35 is a turd. Probably a better turd then anything else out there (excluding maybe the F-22), but not worth the price, and riddled with flaws. General's and Admiral's, however, put pressure on anyone who even thought of speaking negatively about the program. If the saying goes: "Arm-chair generals study tactics, real generals study logistics," then our current crop of General's and Admiral's forgot the part about only "morons putting all their eggs in one basket." This is exactly what the JSF is: a basketful of eggs ready to break. Unfortunately, the defense industry has gotten so totally out of control that we can't afford anything it provides. Pretty soon we will have 1 super tank, plane, submarine weapon thingy. The exit from senior military positions into the defense industry has created an awful supplier of tools to the troops. Our own leaders are so self-interested that they can't even recognize a problem: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/12/26/defe... But the problem of this implicit corruption extends way beyond defense, just look at the banks and the treasury. We need some sort of '5 year hiatus', where after serving in a senior position of government, individuals can't join a corporation that does over X revenue with the branch of government that person just left for 5 years. No more hiring for the roledex or as payback for deeds done while in government. Serve in government to serve, not for the payday afterwards

moe 12y ago
We need some sort of '5 year hiatus' That's sadly unlikely to help, as can be seen in countries where such regulations are in place. The culprits simply delay the payment or move to alternate forms of compensation (e.g. arranging for a well-compensated 'job' for a close family member...).

stcredzero 12y ago

I've always heard that the F/A-18 is one of the most useful planes in our arsenal, but it isn't highly specialized to one specific purpose. The original design came from the same competition that gave us the F-16. High manuverability, high thrust aircraft are fundamentally versatile, especially when you put advanced avionics in them.