Does anyone know where those photos were taken? I'd love to hear the story if anyone knows/ can share it.
Well...
On a different, but entirely more important note, I would like to know why jake grafton, with the same number of posts as me, has three times the reputation. After all of the beautiful little nuggets of wisdom I have imparted. All of you who gave me "virtual rep points" while the rep system was down saddle up and pay up!
Well...
On a different, but entirely more important note, I would like to know why jake grafton, with the same number of posts as me, has three times the reputation. After all of the beautiful little nuggets of wisdom I have imparted. All of you who gave me "virtual rep points" while the rep system was down saddle up and pay up!
I suspect the information is outdated since you, the operator, is saying otherwise … but here is what my “source” wrote on page 6, Mar-Apr 2007 ed of Naval Aviation News …IAs for the HARM, that's not true. Not sure of the date of your information, but we carry HARM.
I suspect the information is outdated since you, the operator, is saying otherwise … but here is what my “source” wrote on page 6, Mar-Apr 2007 ed of Naval Aviation News …
Super Hornet Weapons Tested
The Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold AFB, Tenn., conducted a wind tunnel test of the F/A-18E/F in late December 2006 to certify the Super Hornet to carry new weapons. Store separation characteristics of the AGM-84H SLAM-ER, the AGM-84 HARM, and 14 other stores, in addition to testing the carriage load characteristics of the SLAM-ER, were evaluated.
S/F
Brett ... typo on my partThere's your problem. The AGM-84 is a Harpoon, cousin of SLAM-ER. HARM is AGM-88.
Brett
You're fvcked now...
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
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.