bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Posted July 8, 2015 It was without a doubt, but aside from straight line speed, everything else that would have been required of it could be had a few years later by a far more versatile and cheaper package: Yep....over 5,000 F-4 Phantom IIs were built for more than 20 years. Hell, somebody is still probably flying them. Fast forward to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter....it is also in production with over 100 built for several nations. RFP > Design > Development > Production > Qualification > In Service....that's what matters. You can see an Arrow (mockup) in museum. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Funny enough, outside of intercepting a greatly reduced Soviet bomber force, the only other viable role the Arrow could have contributed to was our then commitment to NATO tactical nuclear strike..........making the Arrow a "nuclear bomb truck", of which the Arrow wouldn't have been bested until the Buccaneer and F-111 were stationed in Western Europe in the late 60s and early 70s...... ? Was that aimed at me? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 ? Was that aimed at me? No, the idiotic "bomb truck" meme.......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 And the idiots who don't understand the bomb truck reality. Don't spend my tax money on this Edsel of aircraft. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 No, the idiotic "bomb truck" meme.......... Okay, for a minute, I thought you thought I actually thought that the F-35 and or F-18 was a bomb truck (but if one is, so is the other). Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Okay, for a minute, I thought you thought I actually thought that the F-35 and or F-18 was a bomb truck (but if one is, so is the other). The F 18 has already proved itself. No bomb truck meme there. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 And the idiots who don't understand the bomb truck reality. We already fly a "bomb truck". Get over it. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 The F 18 has already proved itself. No bomb truck meme there. It's an aircraft with similar dynamics and purpose. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 The F 18 has already proved itself. No bomb truck meme there. The Super Hornet has only proved itself as a bomb truck......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) We already fly a "bomb truck". Get over it. Right, and in our service, the Hornet has proven itself as viable bomb truck..........Likewise, the Hawker Typhoon in RCAF service, but then, when we selected the Hornet, nobody suggested we buy the proven Hawker Typhoon Edited July 9, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Okay, for a minute, I thought you thought I actually thought that the F-35 and or F-18 was a bomb truck (but if one is, so is the other). F/A-18, F-16, F-15E, Tornado etc......all examples of proven "bomb trucks" designed in the 1970s and nearing the end of their useful lives. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 The Super Hornet has only proved itself as a bomb truck......... No not really. It actually does what the manufacturers say it will. And I dont recall it ever blowing up on the runway like the actual bomb truck does. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 No not really. It actually does what the manufacturers say it will. And I dont recall it ever blowing up on the runway like the actual bomb truck does. In other words, you've using a term which, as far as you're concerned, has no actual meaning. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 In other words, you've using a term which, as far as you're concerned, has no actual meaning. It has meaning if you understand aircraft performance...or the lack thereof. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 No not really. It actually does what the manufacturers say it will. And I dont recall it ever blowing up on the runway like the actual bomb truck does. How about in the Arabian Sea? An F/A-18F Super Hornet attached to the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower crashed Monday in the North Arabian Sea. No one was injured. The Super Hornet encountered an engine failure at 12:20 p.m. local time, the Navy stated in a news release. The incident is under investigation. Or what about the two times the entire Super Hornet fleet was grounded due to engine failures? Although derived from an existing aircraft, the F/A-18E/F suffered noteworthy developmental challenges. In 1996, flight testing was suspended when problems with the Super Hornet's engines caused the aircraft to be grounded. The Super Hornet fleet was grounded a second time in 1998 when engine problems resurfaced. In December 1997, the F/A-18E/F's persistent performance problems in highspeed maneuvers led the Navy to delay FY1998 funding for the program, pending solution of these problems. First experienced in March 1996, the aircraft's "wingdrop" problem may occur during turns at speeds of .6 to .9 Mach (speed of sound), when the wing loses lift and the plane rolls unexpectedly to the left or right, preventing the pilot from tracking a target. Since this anomaly was apparently related to the wing's leading edge, some feared the wing might have to be redesigned; others thought the problem could be resolved by modifications of the wing, such as adding a "porous wing fairing." After successful flight testing of this modification, Secretary of Defense Cohen approved FY1998 funding for procurement of another 20 aircraft on April 3, 1998. So the Super Hornet suffered from engine problems, in addition to performance issues, in its development........and yet, OGFT wants to waste taxpayer money on this, decades old, Pinto "bomb truck"......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 How about in the Arabian Sea? Or what about the two times the entire Super Hornet fleet was grounded due to engine failures? So the Super Hornet suffered from engine problems, in addition to performance issues, in its development........and yet, OGFT wants to waste taxpayer money on this, decades old, Pinto "bomb truck"......... One really nice thing about a Super Hornet is, if you do have an engine problem, (which you are statistically much less likely to than in a bomb truck), you have another one to get you home. With the bomb truck you lose a multi million dollar airplane and the pilot has to walk home. Well that assuming the ejection seat works, which it seems not to. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 One really nice thing about a Super Hornet is, if you do have an engine problem, (which you are statistically much less likely to than in a bomb truck), you have another one to get you home. With the bomb truck you lose a multi million dollar airplane and the pilot has to walk home. Well that assuming the ejection seat works, which it seems not to. Then explain how a Super Hornet was lost due to an engine failing? And of course, statistically speaking, you've yet again demonstrated that you don't understand the topic in which you're conversing. The number of Class A in flight mishaps for the twin engine F-15, versus the single engine F-16 as of March 2015......as can be clearly seen, more twin engine F-15s have been lost due to engine problems than single engine F-16s.........Furthermore, the number of Class A mishaps for the twin engine F-22 versus the single engine F-35, and yet again, statistically speaking, twin engine 4th and 5th generation aircraft have a greater loss rate due to engine failures, when compared to 4th and 5th generation single engine aircraft........statistically speaking of course!!!!! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Then explain how a Super Hornet was lost due to an engine failing? And of course, statistically speaking, you've yet again demonstrated that you don't understand the topic in which you're conversing. The number of Class A in flight mishaps for the twin engine F-15, versus the single engine F-16 as of March 2015......as can be clearly seen, more twin engine F-15s have been lost due to engine problems than single engine F-16s.........Furthermore, the number of Class A mishaps for the twin engine F-22 versus the single engine F-35, and yet again, statistically speaking, twin engine 4th and 5th generation aircraft have a greater loss rate due to engine failures, when compared to 4th and 5th generation single engine aircraft........statistically speaking of course!!!!! Its fairly simple...what happens when one engine quits in a single engine airplane, as compared to when it happens in a multi engine aircraft. Ask any pilot and they will tell you you cannot put too many engines o an aircraft. Speaking of which, did you ever find where the engine actually is on a 206... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Its fairly simple...what happens when one engine quits in a single engine airplane, as compared to when it happens in a multi engine aircraft. Ask any pilot and they will tell you you cannot put too many engines o an aircraft. Speaking of which, did you ever find where the engine actually is on a 206... I'm shocked.......another refusal to stay on topic........explain why the above twin engine aircraft have a greater loss rate due to engine failures than single engine types.........or why the twin engine Super Hornet was lost at sea when it had an engine failure? Clearly you can't, since you know little of the subject, despite your mythical claims.......... I'll give you the last word, as that is clearly all that you've got Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 I'm shocked.......another refusal to stay on topic........explain why the above twin engine aircraft have a greater loss rate due to engine failures than single engine types.........or why the twin engine Super Hornet was lost at sea when it had an engine failure? Clearly you can't, since you know little of the subject, despite your mythical claims.......... I'll give you the last word, as that is clearly all that you've got Go get a pilot license and get back to us. Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 It has meaning if you understand aircraft performance...or the lack thereof. Which apparently you don't. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Which apparently you don't. Yeah I do. The term bomb truck was eared by the F 35 because of its lack of maneuverability, acceleration, G force tolerance, ability to climb etc. We could get into the many system failures, including engine, HUD, ability to burn warm fuel, ejection seat, etc. but I dont want to overwhelm you. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Which apparently you don't. Watch it, WCR will call you mean if you call-out Walter Mitty's bs Quote
Smallc Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 Yeah I do. The term bomb truck was eared by the F 35 because of its lack of maneuverability, acceleration, G force tolerance, ability to climb etc. Not unlike a normally loaded Super Hornet (actually, it's better at all of that than the Super Hornet with normal load). Bomb truck indeed. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2015 Report Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) More nonsense...the F-16 was also called a "bomb truck", as were many 60's and 70's era "fighters". F-15 "bomb truck" Edited July 9, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.