F/A 18 is a horrible plane

[razorseal]

Gotcha! Clickbait!!! lol

 

Listen to these haters from when the plane was being built!!!

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by razorseal

[silverdevil]

Gotcha! Clickbait!!! lol

 

Listen to these haters from when the plane was being built!!!

 

 

touche fine madam / sir

[aileron]

Dude what the fork... where is the second half? I think ED sold me a lemon. I need to know if I might the right decision here. ;)

[Kev2go]

Gotcha! Clickbait!!! lol

 

Listen to these haters from when the plane was being built!!!

 

 

 

 

That was way before my time but that sound strikingly familiar like the sort of speil CBC was spiting with the F35 just a few years ago using so called " Subject matter experts" like Pierre Sprey to convince viewers its a lemon, overpriced, and inferior to A/C its replacing....

 

 

So it seems History has repeated itself, and OFC when a given A/C does have an opportunity prove itself in combat, the liberal media and armchair experts finally shut up because there comes a point where you just can't argue against success without looking like a total fool even to the uninformed on aviation matters.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Kev2go

[Knock-Knock]

Hehe yea. I posted the above and this one a while back in the photo/video thread. Funny to see how it all repeats itself.

 

- The Northrop F-18 Cobra :)

[26-J39]

Australia chose it over the F-16 as the primary fighter, the main reasons were reliability and redundancy (twin engine). :smilewink:

[John C Flett]

Yup, deja vu all over again.

 

 

I don't follow all of this stuff, and of course before the internet it was a lot less visible, but I can recall the critics blasting the AH-64 and the M1 Abrams. Seem to remember the F15 had it's share of critics too.

[Furia]

If you have no crtitics, you aren‘t worth a shit

[Mule]

If you have no crtitics, you aren‘t worth a shit

 

True.

[razorseal]

I just love how the media always criticizes everything...

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Kev2go]

1 - Everything at the 1 minute mark was completely true.

2 - Canada as a country was still pissed about the Avro Arrow program's demise. Their Hornet procurement was a direct result and cause of that programs' cancellation.

 

F/A-18A Hornet

Better Than Nothing.

 

Hornet? better than nothing? Honestly go troll elsewhere. The F/A18 was not only a a modern design for its hayday, but became a combat proven success.

 

 

Besides the acquisition of the Hornet had nothing to do with Arrow cancellation since it happened long before it.

Prior to the F/A18A the Canadian Airforce was operating the CF104 ( fighter bomber and tactical nuke bomber) , F101 Voodoo ( bomber interceptor). and the CF5 Freedom fighter.

 

 

When a new A/C was necessary The F/A18A Hornet was chosen at the end of it all because the Tomcat and Eagle were too expensive ( at least to the # of aircraft the RCAF wanted to maintain) to purchase and operate and not multirole ( at least not to the same extent) That left the Hornet and Viper as the more affordable options. The Hornet was chosen fro mthe two because unlike the Viper it met the RCAF requirement for two engines even if it was pricier than the F16.

 

 

IN RCAF service The Hornet replaced 3 airframes being able to fill all role of fighter, Interceptor, and as a strike aircraft. Hornet in general proved to be a robust, reliable and easy to maintain workhorse fighter that could fill multiple roles. The Hornet has served Canada well, as it has Australia and the US. AS an american you should especially know that given your Navy used to use it, and is still in USMC service.

 

 

Canada did eventually modernize its Hornets in the 2000s, in 2 phases basically making it contemporary of a USMC F/A18A ++, although they are utilizing LM Sniper TGP instead of the L-POD

Edited January 26, 2019 by Kev2go

[javelina1]

...The Hornet replaced 3 airframes being able to fill all role of fighter, Interceptor, and as a strike aircraft. Hornet in general proved to be a Robust, reliable and easy to maintain workhorse fighter that could fill multiple roles all the whilst reducing operational costs by replacing 3 aircraft types. The Hornet has served Canada well, as it has Australia and the US....

 

 

S! :thumbup:

[FanBoy2006.01]

That's their job.

 

No. Their job is to report the truth so that people can make informed decisions.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

No. Their job is to report the truth so that people can make informed decisions.

 

Criticism is a method of doing just that, especially when relaying unfamiliar subjects.

[FanBoy2006.01]

@USMC_Trev and MiG21bisFishbedL

 

Sorry. My remark was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the media (Of different countries), negatively report on certain matters and use erroneous data to support their statements.

 

Watched video. And after they bashed the F/A 18 closer to the end they highlight the good parts of it as well.

With F-35 it is just a total basing of the F-35. And using half-truths and completely wrong information to do so. It shows me to what level the media has devolved.

All I need to know about F-35 is what Russian fighter experts say about it.

One stated that he foresee that it will be success just as the F-16 it is replacing.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

@USMC_Trev and MiG21bisFishbedL

 

Sorry. My remark was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the media (Of different countries), negatively report on certain matters and use erroneous data to support their statements.

 

Watched video. And after they bashed the F/A 18 closer to the end they highlight the good parts of it as well.

With F-35 it is just a total basing of the F-35. And using half-truths and completely wrong information to do so. It shows me to what level the media has devolved.

All I need to know about F-35 is what Russian fighter experts say about it.

One stated that he foresee that it will be success just as the F-16 it is replacing.

 

It's a fair and tempting response. It's all good.

 

When it comes to something as complex and competitive as fighter design, you should always remember:

-It's reporters who are usually laypersons trying to translate expert talk into something the everyday Joe and Jill can digest. What may be seen as dishonest could just be a reporter who didn't know what to prioritize in reporting a story.

-Misinformation exists and will happen since it's plenty easy to to smear something anonymously. And, this isn't even a new phenomenon. Sir Richard Owen (1804-1892) often wrote into magazines in 19th century UK under aliases to praise his own findings and detract his opponents. So, if some dude in the 1800s can do it, it's even easier nowadays.

-The simplicity required for reporting compounds misinformation by leaving little wiggle room. The half hour television block format leaves very little time to go into detail and news sites compete with newsblogs for clicks, so hyperbole sells.

[TLTeo]

^ Exactly. As an astrophysicist I see this every time a discovery makes it to the general public; by the time it gets there it's so washed up and inaccurate I end up facepalming at the whoever is doing the reporting more often than not.

 

That generally has made me veeeery skeptical of pretty much any report you get about, say, the F-35; by the time some military report gets to me it's likely to have been boiled down and cherry picked to the point where it doesn't have enough information for me to form an educated opinion. On top of that, I am not military and certainly do not have the competence to judge that aircraft, just like an F-35 pilot does not have the competence to judge my science.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

^ Exactly. As an astrophysicist I see this every time a discovery makes it to the general public; by the time it gets there it's so washed up and inaccurate I end up facepalming at the whoever is doing the reporting more often than not.

 

That generally has made me veeeery skeptical of pretty much any report you get about, say, the F-35; by the time some military report gets to me it's likely to have been boiled down and cherry picked to the point where it doesn't have enough information for me to form an educated opinion. On top of that, I am not military and certainly do not have the competence to judge that aircraft, just like an F-35 pilot does not have the competence to judge my science.

 

And, this is all before you throw charlatans into the mixture, like Pierre "Wild Turkey" Sprey, Kent "Doctor" Hovind, and Giorgio "Hairstylist Apocalypse" Tsoukalos.

[TLTeo]

I just looked up those people and honestly I'm not sure Pierre Sprey belongs with the other two (to me he sounds like he's just biased towards the old Fighter Mafia doctrine even now), but yes, those kinds of people certainly do not help.

[pegon]

Nothing new. Tell me about a modern fighter that hasn't been bashed to death before introduction (except Gripen of course)

[TLTeo]

Nothing new. Tell me about a modern fighter that hasn't been bashed to death before introduction (except Gripen of course)

 

 

Gripen was bashed too actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Controversies,_scandals,_and_costs

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

The F-18, the most reliable airplane that the Air Force and Navy can have, is a reliable MRCA, and has proven it for years and continues to demonstrate it, and above all it is beautiful, and the superhornet is even more beautiful

[John C Flett]

Don't get me started on the media and the way things are reported.

 

 

To give them their due, they are rarely making the criticism, they merely report that somebody has done so. But in this 24 media the frenzy for stories means that anybody with a Twitter account can get coverage regardless of the merit.

 

 

In the UK the BBC have a policy where they try to offer a counterpoint to most stories which is a great idea in theory but the number of times I've seen an expert with years of experience and numerous qualifications debating with some random member of the public who has nothing but a flight-of-fantasy opinion.

 

 

End of the day, active service is the only critic that matters.

[Kev2go]

I just looked up those people and honestly I'm not sure Pierre Sprey belongs with the other two (to me he sounds like he's just biased towards the old Fighter Mafia doctrine even now), but yes, those kinds of people certainly do not help.

 

But thats why hes a quack....

 

 

the FM doctrine was kinda flawed from the get go, but to today its outright irrelevant. Its like his understanding of aviation technology has not progressed, IE its almost as if Sprey, is still mentally stuck in the 1960s pr early 70s of aviation capabilities and philosophies.

 

 

the argument of Cost effectiveness has merits.... ( see a/c like F16 or F/A18, or Gripern are example of cost effectivnness done right ) but not if you built an aircraft exaclty how the FM wanted which would have resulted in a something that would be obselete in DAy 1. He started to hate the F16 from the very first production model. ( F16A from day one already had unguided muntions with CCIP/CCRP delivery modes) just becuase AF gave it secodnary A/G capability and not a pure dogfighter. He hated the F16 even more when they turned it into a full on Multirole fighter with the C models and gave it Radar guided missiles ( Amraams)

 

 

like the sort of arguments Pierre Sprey to support is viewpoints are at timesjust biased, rely on misinformation, in other instances they are outright quack.

 

 

LIke dont tell me its not mental for a person to be making claims that a a F15E strike eagle is so vulnerable vs an A10 against ground fire that 0.22 calibre weapon can shoot down it down and therefore A10 > F15E

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is an old document by Sprey

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/12.pdf

 

 

which still reflects his viewpoints even many years later.... ( a PDF presentation)

 

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

 

 

 

the second link especially is especially might be comical for any halfway informed defense tech ( armor and/ or aviation) enthusiasts

Edited February 1, 2019 by Kev2go

[TLTeo]

LOL ok those slides are the military equivalent of flat earthers.