The navy in it's infinite wisdom has decided that the "super" hornet can replace all the planes on a carrier. They are doing away with the EA6-B and using the super hornet to do it's job. The S-3s are going away. So that leaves the only available navy air to air refuel is a superhornet which by the way is awful on fuel consumption can't even take off with a full load of gas and arms and they want to use that for an all around use. Well I came up with a little photo chop to show how retarded it all is by coming up with a replacement for the old E2-C hawkeye (airborne early warning a flying ATC if you will)



ok my rant is over now.

I hate the way things are going. I won't say any more.

I was down for the Oceana air show just a few weeks ago and was lucky enough to see the last tac demo of the F-14 Tomcat...I know the Navy wants the F-14 out of service due to high maint costs, but the Hornet just doesnt get my blood going like the Tomcat does...I've been reading for a long time that the Navy wanted a replacement for the A6 Intruder and the Prowler is based on that airframe IIRC...so the Super Hornet is being pressed into service to cover all of these roles?...I dont think any one plane is that good.

What else do you expect from squids???

No offense but I got that from one of my best friends who was in the USMC.

forgive my lingo in advance since I've never been in the service...and I do have the highest respect for all of those in uniform...but it seems to me like the Jarheads shouldnt gripe to much about the squids since they carry them almost everywhere they need to go...and to any Naval aviator...you gotta have a set of jumbo coconut cajones to land any kind of aircraft on a carrier...I once had a former navy man tell me that landing on a carrier was like filling the bathtub, standing on the side and then jumping and landing both feet ona bar of floating soap.

The original F/A-18 replaced the A-6. It's not the fighter that the F-14 or F-15 is but is adaptable to more roles like attack. Now that the F-14s are getting old (remember the last ones rolled out of the Grumman plant in the 80s) So the Navy needs a replacement one that has some "legs"(enough fuel to fly for a few hours)So they had the Superhornet made. It's three feet longer has 35% more wing area and two extra hard points (for weapons or fuel). It is more technically advanced then any previous Naval airframe and is even more adaptable then its predesesor. But it doesn't have the "legs" they were looking for. So now all the money has been dumped into an average airframe with lots of wizbang components and they want to not only do fighter duties with it but, attack, electronic warfare, refuelling and who knows what else. But get this it won't be the only plane on the flight deck because of the new JSF hmmm another jack of all trades.
Single engine too!! what Naval aviator wants only one engine when your hundreds of miles from land?

I've always loved the superhornets. They've been my favorite plane for many years.

Herc, I saw a college prank that Navy played on Airforce where they painted a fighter jet "statue" in colorado springs to look like one of the blue angels. I immediately thought of you.

Wish I could find a picture, but I can't remember where I saw it.

LOL

Herc, I found the link with photo!

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2005/10_06-46/TOP

too funny. That took some time.

Did 22 years in the Navy, 8 on carriers. Must say that the F-14 was and still is the most impressive and intimidating weapon in the Naval Air Force arsenal. The F-18 just doesn't do it for me. Didn't get to see the 2 seater version of the 18 before I left sea duty. The F-22 Raptor(JSF) looks quite impressive also. Took two launches off a carrier and it was a thrill ride. Never landed. TBats description was pretty accurate, although for night flying you'd need to land on those bars of soap blindfolded.

F-22 is completely different from the JSF.

New Airforce bird the F-22