-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
C vs. E/F
- Thread starter Chubby
- Start date
FMC rates are deceiving … a good MMCO can make the numbers read anything the AMO needs (to keep his job). The real proof is when you start your jet up (and the last jet shuts down at the end of the day) … what is really working in the jet versus what is “working” on paper. If you can honestly say every piece of equipment was working 98.9% of the time when you started up your Lot 15’s on deployment, then that’s some pretty good work by your maintainers. But on deployment you have priority on parts and dollars so FMC rates are still skewed … what were your FMC rates from post deployment until you started workups again in your Lot 15’s? your Lot 21's?
Don’t get me wrong … I’m loyal to my airframe and I love bashing other airframes as much as the next guy but APG-65 sorting out of spotlight and shooting Sparrows …you can have the “A”. T-45 beating the crap out of an “F”? What was the setup? If it was a 1v1 set then the “F” pilot and his training officer needs to get fired. I suspect it wasn’t. Kinda like listening to A-10 pilots talk about how bad ass they are until you hear their BFM setup PADS … they fight 2v1 and want you to start somewhere around 250 knots or slower … then brag about waxing the hornet. Or a slicked off F/A-18 guy bragging about how he kicked the shit out of that F-16 guy in a 1v1 nuechie set, who was carrying pylons and a centerline tank. It’s comical. I'm just a realist I suppose.
One thing I recently learned though ... the old school hornet carries a larger variety of weapons than the SH ... I was kinda shocked to read (unclass) that the SH can't carry HARM.
Just too clarify for all … I’m in the Marines, my issues might be different than the Navy. But most of the F/A-18C's the Corps flies are trapped out, traded with the Navy for F/A-18A's (later modified A+'s or not ... there was at least one Navy squadron flying over Iraq in '03 that were old school A's shoot'n Sparrows only; they fly E's now.)
S/F
bolterking
Member
UInavy said:
Old school was indeed wrong choice of words. I was speaking relavtive to my history in the hornet community. No disrespect meant, and yes they do have great stories and experiences that probably no one will ever experience or see again.
bolterking
Member
BVR sets....and every aircraft was slicked off. If that pilot is a member...I would like to see the video if you are able to declass it and post.
bolterking
Member
I am only talking about deployment rates. Yes we dropped down a bit but actually not much. CIT/MIDS are not hard systems to keep up. Flirs, well everyone just loses them all when they get back to cross deck. APG-65/73 was the weakest link...but still able to keep them groomed very well. We lost 3 jets to mods (MIDS etc) two went to the RAG, two went to other squadrons in workups, and one to Fallon for Weapons school support.. We wrote a 4 pit 4 turn 2 tun 2 for 6 months...and we only had those 4 jets. We were able to get entire divisions out for SFWT hops with no issues...then again our troops lost a lot of sleep too (give em a NAM if you ask me), but it was feasible.
i read the same thing about SH weapon loadout. I found that shocking and wondering if that was true. Anyone shed some light on this?
That's the first I've heard WRT HARM, but I've been out of the tactics side for a few years. Obviously, the G will carry them, so it can't be an airframe issue. I dunno, do we really need more HARM trucks? I guess max flexibility would be best.
Brett
It is true that the Rhino can't carry as many different types of weapons as the Hornet, which is changing rapidly as the VX squadrons keep testing. That's what happens when you have a completely different wing and set of aerodynamics. The jets look similar, but they're not.
As for the HARM, that's not true. Not sure of the date of your information, but we carry HARM.
I understand that, but this also means that the parts train was flawless, and the squadron was able to get ALL mission code parts w/in 24 hours. Possible, but again, a challenge. If it wasn't creative accounting, I suspect some confusion on the difference between MC and FMC rates. I had a 98.7% MC rate on deployment, but one of my birds was PMC for at least 40% of the time, but we only missed a couple of actual missions since it wasn't something that didn't prevent us from flying.
But bolterking stands by his statement, so I guess that's that. Sounds like whichever model you get, you pointy-nose guys will be happy.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Being NMC for a bad Main XMSN will really kill you UAAP and LASR rates...
Then again, rolling one over in the flight deck is even worse
Then again, rolling one over in the flight deck is even worse
Bet if you took the F pilot out of that Rhino and put him in a ABCDE or Raptor on that same day, he may have gotten beat by a T-45 as well. Also willing to bet that if you took the stick out of the 45 and put him in that F, the mighty goshawk would have been dead meat also.
Just curious, how much Rhino time do you have? I know a ton of converts C's-F's Tom's to Rhino's and all of them love the Rhino. We all agree more top speed would be great, but the Rhino has all the toys to get the job done right the first time. I also hear alot of guys bashing the platform even though they have no time in it. And it's always nice to have a second brain in the back to QA a possible F up by a nugget.
There's a now-infamous photo of a Rhino (allegedly of VFA-11) with a Raptor in its gunsights as well.
Bolterking says he'd take an A vice an F on E-M diagrams... yeah, but without JHMCS and -9X, the A's superior rate numbers aren't buying you much. For that matter, I'd rather have ALQ-214 than ALQ-126, APG-79 vice APG-65, and twice as many expendables vice half as many.
Like EOD said, we'd all love more sheer performance, I'm hard-pressed to believe we've lost more than we've gained in -18 development.
Bolterking says he'd take an A vice an F on E-M diagrams... yeah, but without JHMCS and -9X, the A's superior rate numbers aren't buying you much. For that matter, I'd rather have ALQ-214 than ALQ-126, APG-79 vice APG-65, and twice as many expendables vice half as many.
Like EOD said, we'd all love more sheer performance, I'm hard-pressed to believe we've lost more than we've gained in -18 development.
Said Photos
Attachments
wilsonator
Registered User
This post is for the guys in K-rock and Meridian. As you can see, we all have different opinions on the issue. Get you wings and live the dream. Some of you may not realize how lucky you are with all your choices (sense my sarcasm) C, E, F or the very rare occasion a prowler is available. It has not always been this way. You will love the Hornet, all versions are a hell of a lot cooler than any other job in the Navy and then you too will bitch about what weapons you can and can't carry and you can compare EM diagrams. It's fun to think back to my days in T-34s wishing for a chance to ride in a T-45 and now I fly 18's. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the guys sharing stories but I just wanted to give some perspective to the dudes still in training.
That is a beautiful thing to see.