Clean load it's okay, but when you load it with anything it quickly turns into a draggy mess.
Why is this slow piece of shit the fleet's defense nowadays?
Luke Martinez
Carter Carter
Because a missileer don't need to be fast or turny.
Luis Stewart
explain
Dominic Hughes
advancements in technology make a Hornet better than a Tomcat ever was. You might not have the raw range of the Phoenix, but you have a better radar and better missiles
Samuel Clark
DCS overmodels the drag for some reason and the E/F has more power than the C, so don't be too sure.
Connor Gomez
I'm aware the Tomcat isn't the latest and greatest in the world and how the tech aboard a Rhino will stomp a Tomcat 9/10 times, but I'm wondering why a relatively slow fighter is taking on all the roles for all the things aboard CVNs.
Isaiah Jenkins
Because there are a fuck ton of them and they can do pretty much anything. That's the American way.
Justin Phillips
Well, they cancelled the naval advanced tactical fighter program in '92, due to the end of the Cold War and the lack of any credible threat that F-14s and 18s couldn't handle. It was basically going to see the navy consider buying a navalized version of the F-22/23, depending on what the AF bought.
Michael Myers
Speed is not as important in aerial combat than maneuverability
The Hornet takes less space on the carrier than the Tomcat
Hornet has variants that use less pilots
There is also an electronic warfare variant
Better fuel economy
Lower maintenance costs
Nowadays fleet defense consists of dedicated ships wielding lots of missiles for long range, medium range and short range interception
Oliver Green
Because they cant publish the true capabilities of the Hornet otherwise the enemies can train against that
Samuel Torres
Are the pylons still canted at an outward angle? I remember reading that they needed to do that because weapons would wobble when being released, but it causes the F-18E/F to burn way too much fuel when flying supersonic. I read that more than 15 years ago, so maybe they fixed it since then.
Cameron Scott
Nah pretty straight nowadays.
Ryan Diaz
You could load up Cessnas with AMRAAMS and as long as you have something guiding the AMRAAMs home, the flight performance of the Cessna doesn't matter
Adam Butler
The flight performance definitely matters to a degree, as you have to be able to fire the AMRAAM close enough and with enough initial energy to hit a maneuvering target, but nowhere near as much as movies like Top Gun would have you think.
Liam Barnes
No but seriously, because of off-bore-sight capabilities on modern missiles that can target and launch based on helmet assisted aiming & targeting it's been found in war games that it makes a regular plane about as good in a dogfight as a supermanuverable plane.
Combine with modern BVR missiles and targeting systems on F/A-18 super hornets then you have the peak missileer.
Dominic Cook
How are the f-18s supposed to deal with backfires and flanker variants? They're fast and carry a lot of fuel, they can fire anti-ship missiles at long range then fly away knowing the f-18s will never catch them. The J20 probably causes similar issues.
Christian Gray
They deal with them because fleet defense comprises of more than just F-18s. Also slavs cannot into aircraft maintenance and their missiles and aircraft will be detected. Long before they get within range of a CBG.
>J-20
I guarentee there is a plan in place to deal with it. I guarentee we know every time one takes off and lands, its exact RCS, every piece of data it transmits and receives and how to defeat it. Also there's so few of them they're hardly a threat.
Aiden Collins
Still canted, will forever be canted because of aerodynamics.
t. Wind tunnel test analyst who has worked on store separation tests involving Super Hornet and Growler
Zachary Fisher
>a missileer don't need to be fast
Enjoy a dozen Kh-22s up your ass.
Joseph Kelly
>posts a movie as evidence.
A high level of vatnik cope here.
Noah Adams
>posts a movie as evidence
No, retard, I posted a scene from a film as an illustration.
Kevin Brown
>he thinks the slavs can field enough Tu-22s to take out a CBG.
Protip: they cannot.
Anthony White
Tu-22 is retired, retard.
Noah Green
It's kind of obvious that whenever someone talks about the TU-22 they're referring to the version that wasn't complete shit
Kayden Wilson
How should I know if the retard thinks there's not enough of them to take out a CBG?
Wyatt Long
Because russian maintenance is shit and they will not be able to get enough airworthy to strike a CBG.
Christian Torres
Prove it.
Brandon Carter
A I R W O R T H Y
MIGHTY TU-22M WAITING TO STRIKE DUMB AMERICAN FLEET
Ian Martin
Kevin Cox
TREMBLE AT THE MIGHT OF THE RuAF
Cameron Harris
>Posts a museum piece
See? It's not that obvious, the retard was probably indeed talking about Tu-22.
Evan Fisher
Daniel Roberts
You can't even tell different aircraft apart, retard. Lurk more.
Noah Robinson
SO MIGHTY, SHE IS ONLY RESTING.
Thomas Jones
TRULY UNSTOPPABLE
Joshua Wilson
Why is this caps retard so triggered?
Cooper Mitchell
THIS CORROSION IS MERELY SUPERFICIAL
Cameron Long
SO MIGHTY
Joseph Jackson
>57 RED Former Ukrainian Air Force Tupolev Tu-22M3 Blinder at the State Aviation Museum of Ukraine Kiev
Stop sharting your pants, retard.
Levi Murphy
Jonathan Cox
Brayden Ramirez
T-I-G-E-R-S
Julian Cook
Yes, sometimes aircraft crash. There's over 60 Tu-22M3 in service. Deal with it.
Jeremiah Perez
uh huh
Christian Bennett
Ooooh , so scawy. 60 rust buckets spread across the ENTIRE country of Russia. I'm trembling in my little Arleigh Burke.
Robert Thompson
"Uh huh"-what, retard?
>across the ENTIRE country of Russia
Not really, they're in two regiments in Europe and Siberia. They're aircraft and can be deployed where they are needed, retard.
>I'm trembling in my little Arleigh Burke.
Yeah, as I said, enjoy a dozen Kh-22s up your ass because your carrier group is too slow to intercept Tu-22M.
Cooper Smith
Guess you could say the cuts to the TU22M's maintenance schedules really backfired
Brandon Lewis
>he thinks the only thing intercepting the 22s will be F-18s
You're such a fucking brainlet it hurts. Please stop. They would be detected the minute they leave their bases, and intercepted before they reached the fleet. Their home stations are deep in russian territory and we absolutey track them whenever they leave. The west has eyes and ears EVERYWHERE. If they move to a coastal facility. We would know. If they launch with missiles, we would know. If they got within 1000nm of the fleet armed, you bet your fucking ass we would have multiple aircraft in the air intercepting them. F-15s from Japan and South Korea. F-15s from Lakenheath, F-16s from Italy. Whatever is currently at Incirlik or Al Udeid. We would utterly buttfuck them before they got to the fleet. And IF they got within range, the missiles wouldn't make it. You don't need to use CWIS or C-RAMS to down them. We can jam the living fuck out of them. We know all of their targeting data, we know the way the missiles track, we know the signals they transmit and receive and we know how to jam them.
So shut the fuck up and read a goddamn book you illiterate slavaboo.
Jeremiah Lopez
uh huh
Justin Myers
>Because russian maintenance is shit and they will not be able to get enough airworthy to strike a CBG.
The problem is the tu-22m are just sitting there, if they really want to they can get them flying again in a year or two. America chopped up all their F-14s and don't have a high speed naval interceptor. If anyone figures out a way to exploit the F-18 and F-35s relatively low speed it would take them a decade to design and produce a new naval interceptor. The only option I can think of that could be made in a short period is trying to make a naval F-15 variant.
Thomas Lee
Liam Wilson
F-14 are retired, retard.
Jaxson Lopez
he didn't mention 14s
slavtard
Lincoln Foster
We don't need a high speed interceptors. We keep tabs on every strategic bomber the slavs have. We know where they are, we know when they take off land. We know every single time a pilot so much as farts in his flight suit. We can intercept them from anywhere in the world.
Obtain some reading comprehension. I never mentioned the F-14.
Jonathan Edwards
Cool story.
svd.se
Leo Torres
>posts garbage in swedish
>expects anyone to understand durka
Come on son.
Jordan Murphy
>200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless air strikes from the US, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria – about 40 by the end of the firefight – were harmed.
kek
Parker Lewis
>Russian aircraft suddenly teleport into missile range of an unescorted carrier with no planes in the air.
I liked this movie but this scene never made any sense.
Jaxon Russell
you see, the US decided to swap the functional carriers, for the RUSSIA STRONK carrier. so when they tried to launch their one functional plane, it just fell in the water
Grayson Sanders
F-14 was the only thing in the USN designed to intercept a supersonic bomber attack.
Gabriel Clark
Missiles are fired from beyond radar horizon.
Angel Hernandez
luckily the russians can't get more than one or 2 in the air, and they'll be detected on takeoff, then shot down by F-18Es
Joshua Sanchez
See:
Ryan Harris
>i read it on the internet. It MUST be true.
Luckily there is more than one way to stop a super sonic bomber attack.
Thomas Torres
do u even cobra bro?
Jaxson Russell
see
it's cute when they get a TU-160 airborne every couple months and fly around near alaska
Easton Powell
No, I read it in the International Institute for Strategic Studies annual assessment of the military capabilities and defence economics of 171 countries worldwide. And you are some no-name butthurt Jow Forumsturd russophobe who can't deal with it.
>Luckily there is more than one way to stop a super sonic bomber attack.
Unluckily for USN they retired their only way to intercept a supersonic bomber attack.
>No arguments
Cooper Lee
>russophobe
its funny how russians love the tough guy gopnik act until someone points them out for the retards they are and then its all "boo hoo why does the west hate us so much? we never did anything!". this is approaching mudslime tiers of victimization, grow a fucking pair.
Alexander Morales
Well, right now you are mad because facts don't support your saliva-spewing russophobic rants. I suggest you deal with in and grow up.
William Foster
im not the user youre arguing with, im just pointing out what a gigantic faggot you are even using russophobic as if its supposed to mean something. i guess all those vatnik shitposts about burgerclaps and ameritards ameriphobic then
Brayden Moore
You're replying to someone else.
You're forgetting that the USN would absolutely know when multiple Tu-22s take off armed and on course with a CBG. They would absolutely have birds in the air well before the 22s get in range. We track Russias strategic assets, and 22s are nuclear capable strategic assets.
Juan Lee
>im not the user youre arguing with
This makes your buttblasted russophobic rant even less credible. He is at least consistent in his retardation, you on the other hand just jump in and cry like a bitch when someone points out how retarded you are trying to advocate ignorance and denial of facts.
Luke Harris
>make a Hornet better than a Tomcat ever was
Nigga, the D model, if updated the same way as the Hornet would eat every fucking hornet alive and mop the floor with the bodies of their crew.
Colton Moore
>ctrl+f "squeal"
>no results
is tuesday his day off ?
Bentley Roberts
Yeah, looks like armatard called a sick leave. I think they got someone else in his place.
Joseph Sullivan
You seem to have misunderstood all that fancy reading you've done. The USN had interceptors because at the time they didn't have a better way to intercept bombers. The USN patrolled the routes that those bombers would likely take to hit targets in the USA and her allies. They'd fill the skies with radar and if they saw something an F14 would go up to meet it. The proliferation of air bases across the globe, the advances in early detection, and the advances in missiles have made the old strategy obsolete. Any bomber that approaches USN vessels will be detected at ranges well over double the distance the opponent will need to fire. Once detected and since they are closing the distance, an F18 will always get within missile range before the bomber does, again because they are flying straight at each other.
Colton Parker
See >We track Russias strategic assets, and 22s are nuclear capable strategic assets.
How ice of you to ever further show how little you know about the subject. Tu-22M3 are specifically not a subject of SALT. Furthermore, "tracking" actual strategic assets that are subject to it has nothing to do with tracking their position at any given time.
Hunter Parker
The early to mid 1960s called and want their air warfare tactics back. Putting all your money on missile technology and no brute Air Comband Maneuvering means you gonna lose lots of planes and pilots.
Ian Baker
Cool story, see
Michael Perez
>F18 will always get within missile range before the bomber does
No.
Jonathan Turner
No phobia here Ishmal only contempt
Liam Roberts
>its not a strategic asset by the SALT treaty there for we do no track it.
Okay retard. Its clearly a threat to our strategic assets. We absolutely do track it. We absolutely track the bases they are stationed at for movement. At the end of the day they are still super sonic, nuclear capable, strategic bombers. I refuse to believe you're are an academic if you're arguing against this.
Matthew Brown
>pastebin newfag
Also it says the Russians were detected and intercepted.
Lincoln White
Are you rarted?
Aaron Johnson
>an article with a paywall in swedish about a hypothetical Russian attack on Swedish assets
do you have schizophrenia?
Ryan Jackson
>I was proven wrong, whatever shall I do
>Better act even more retarded
You picked both. Yes, retard, that's exactly how New START works.
>We absolutely do track it
No, you do not. Elsewise, please do point me at where is Tu-22M3 mentioned:
en.wikipedia.org
>I refuse to believe
Yeah, your ignorance and denial of facts surely is visible.
Lincoln Young
Yeah. "intercepted" when it was too late.
>hypothetical
Retard.
Ethan Adams
>in the entirety of the DIA, NSA and Naval Intelligence fields there isn't ONE GUY who periodically tracks a strategic bomber that carriers ship killers.
Ok retard.
Justin Richardson
Are you projecting your inferiority
Caleb Hall
Ok now for reality. So how far would the Hawkeye pickets detect the TU-22 Ms?
Then we're assuming this is some 20 TU-22 deploying each 2 KH-22s ?
As soon a CSG gets nose that the Tupolevs are in the air they probably go into full combat mode focusing on AA so that is 1-2 Ticonderogas and a Destroyer Squadron with 2-3 Arleigh Burkes ... that is a shitload of AA for the KH-22s to get through, even with a saturation strike + you can count on the Superbugs to down at least a few en route even before getting into ship AA range.
Adrian Ramirez
>Implying implications
You acted retarded, have shown your ignorance and have been proven wrong with factual sources and examples. Deal with it.
Jaxson Russell
Do you seriously think we only watch specific assets mentioned in specific treaties.
Jayden King
At E-2's service ceiling of 10600 km the radar horizon is 425 km. Kh-22 range is 600 km, Kh-32 range is 1000 km, Kh-47M2 range is 2000 km from MiG-31 and 3000 km from Tu-22M3.
Jackson Bailey
All would be detected by ground radar, and airborne surveillance aircraft the minute they left their bases.
Jordan Long
Just for you dickhead.
Zachary Long
Prove it.
Isaac Ross
Satillite is in orbit, satillite takes photo, easy. You want more spoon feeding.
Hudson White
Squeal more Ishmal
Easton Hall
At E-2's service ceiling of 10600 km the radar horizon is 425 km. E-2 can cruise on station up to 320 km from base. In an absolute perfect for a CBG scenario when E-2 is placed perfectly between Tu-22M3s and a CBG this gives 745 km detection range, which covers only Kh-22 range by 145 km, which Tu-22M flying at low altitude covers that in 8 minutes. This is 255 km short of Kh-32 range, 2255 km short of Kh-47M2 range. Good luck intercepting that with F-18.
Jeremiah Scott
Thats impressive, but how do the TU 22s see/flag a moving target like a CSG , they can't just shoot them "somewhere" ? Also the moment the CSG is painted by a targeting radar all hell would break lose I would think.