-
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
F/A-18E vs F... benefits of one over the other?
- Thread starter pdizzle
- Start date
I have time in A, A+ and everything up to the F (no G time for me). I also have plenty of F-16 A/B time fighting against all flavors of Hornet/Rhino. Overall I agree that it comes down to the man in the box as long as configuration is similar (pylons/tanks, etc). The low altitude, no pylon performance on an E/F is pretty exceptional, but it won't guarantee a win on its own. Some people may think that a F loses some performance because of the larger canopy. I disagree. This is definitely an issue between A and B or C and D, but E/F the canopy size in relation to the overall size of the aircraft is much less relevant and not even noticeable from my point of view.
Pap said it quite well here, but I would cut the B and D out of the equation. If you are better than me then you in a D should beat me in an A, C, or E, but I do feel there is definitely a performance deficit with the B and D based on my experience.
As far as missions I was never in a F squadron. However, I have seen plenty in action. Sometimes 1+1 = 2.5, but sometimes 1+1 = 0.3. But 1 does not always equal 1 in an E either! Missions where I personally would prefer being in an E would be pure air to air and the use of standoff or GPS weapons. I just don't need/want the company, but I grew up as an only child C/E guy. Missions where I feel a crew in a F are indispensable: FAC(A) and RMC. Missions where a GOOD crew in a F might have a leg up: LGBs on moving targets.
So why do we not specialize the squadrons based on type? Well, we don't get into much pure air to air. We also don't do much pure stand off. Additionally a good crew in a F can be every bit as good, or better, at air to air and stand off weapons just like a solid E pilot can be just as good at LGB employment. By specializing the squadrons based on type you limit your overall capability for the extremely rare instance where it would have been beneficial. Anyone seen a F-15C in Iraq or Afghanistan lately? They have an important role in our national defense, but they have been rather useless in these two theaters over the last several years specifically because they are hyper-specialized. That generates political heat about costs, valid or not.
Only my opinion though.
Pap said it quite well here, but I would cut the B and D out of the equation. If you are better than me then you in a D should beat me in an A, C, or E, but I do feel there is definitely a performance deficit with the B and D based on my experience.
As far as missions I was never in a F squadron. However, I have seen plenty in action. Sometimes 1+1 = 2.5, but sometimes 1+1 = 0.3. But 1 does not always equal 1 in an E either! Missions where I personally would prefer being in an E would be pure air to air and the use of standoff or GPS weapons. I just don't need/want the company, but I grew up as an only child C/E guy. Missions where I feel a crew in a F are indispensable: FAC(A) and RMC. Missions where a GOOD crew in a F might have a leg up: LGBs on moving targets.
So why do we not specialize the squadrons based on type? Well, we don't get into much pure air to air. We also don't do much pure stand off. Additionally a good crew in a F can be every bit as good, or better, at air to air and stand off weapons just like a solid E pilot can be just as good at LGB employment. By specializing the squadrons based on type you limit your overall capability for the extremely rare instance where it would have been beneficial. Anyone seen a F-15C in Iraq or Afghanistan lately? They have an important role in our national defense, but they have been rather useless in these two theaters over the last several years specifically because they are hyper-specialized. That generates political heat about costs, valid or not.
Only my opinion though.
Oh, I know I have a small dick. I just want to post something on here without being told that I'm wrong.
I try to incite flame wars with Stinky all the time but he never takes the bait.
Might be a dumb question, but can single seat guys act as RMC? It seems like a LOT going on for one dude to be juggling.
Yes.
CAN they? Yes, anyone CAN be an RMC.
SHOULD they be? That's the question that should be asked. In my expirience, RMC was usually filled by the VF guys since it was viewed (at least in the discussions I've had) as a role similair to FAC(A). Now I guess it would be the 18F guys who have taken over the roll within the airwing.
When you look at the USAF, the A-10's have RMC as a mission when they fill the role of Sandy. They guys train to this mission A LOT, so they are very qualified for the mission. These would be my first choice of RMC if I was doing a CSAR.
So yes a single-seat can be an RMC, especially if they are trained for the mission and have done it a bunch. However, since most USN fixed wing guys will do that mission seldomly, as compared to a USAF Sandy qual'd pilot, it is proabably better to have a two-seat aircraft to conduct the mission since that is where most of our FAC(A) qual'd guys reside.
Copy. I didn't know about the A-10 guys serving as RMC as well. I'd really like to get my hands on an AF CSAR pub instead of just the Navy and joint pub.
Had I gotten a scenario during the syllabus in which an organic CSG CSARTF wasn't given to me, I'd certainly have requested A-10s for a RESCORT, since they are probably a bit more experienced at tearing shit up/CAS than our Hornets (Of course, no experience. Just what I've gathered from reading/talking to SWTIs), but alas... I never had the opportunity.
10,600 and 10,800 in Mil. 16,000 and 18,000 in Max.
The big difference would be the extra 4,000 lbs of total thrust in MAX. If the plane is low on weight (A++ especially), you can get over 1:1 easily.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I'll just tell you you're wrong. I'll take a CH-46E against anyone of your jets. Provided your radar doesn't work, you've only got guns, you haven't seen me yet, your training is on par with a third world elementary school girl (or a WWII Kamikaze pilot), and you haven't flown in > 180 days. Then I'll wax your ass.
That's because I piss proffessionalism.
I see there's 2 f's in professionism.