Jump to content

USN vs USAF jets

jpk

By jpk,
in Jet Modeling

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

vanilla gorilla

vanilla gorilla

Posted
Posted

Uprgrades, calenders, budgets, chow halls..whatever. Some groups are used to getting it done with less, that's the history and tradition. In the near future, I don't think it will matter. Seems to me, that the Gov't. is heading in the direction of a homogenized military fighting force. Before long, there will only be one "team". And what difference does it make? The different branches play different roles not because no one else can, but because that's the way our military is set up at present. Paint an AH-64 grey and stencil USMC on it. Take the USAF markings off a C-5 and mark USMC on it. Would the airframe still perform the same? Snipers, Tankers, Spec Ops, Grunts, MP's..doesn't matter what branch they serve, they all basically operate with the same weapons platforms and are capable of performing similiar, if not the same, missions. I love interservice rivalry and I have a great deal of respect for each of the branches and the functions they perform. It struck me wrong though, when reading these posts about which is more valuable than the other or who can do what task better. The branches of the Service are set up in varying ways and people usually gravitate to those arenas seeking to be a part of that group and therefore seperate themselves from the others. What seperates a Navy flyer from an Air Force flyer or an Army grunt from a Marine grunt, has less to do with the tools and more to do with the person, I believe. VG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spongebob

Spongebob

Posted
Posted (edited)
And yes, I know the biggest part of the USN budget goes to the big, floating gray things…
Given that, you'd think they could make them smell better.

Or figure out how to get hot water to a shower 443' from 2 (not 1 but 2!) operating nuclear reactors.

Spongebob

Edited by Spongebob
Link to post
Share on other sites
Spongebob

Spongebob

Posted
Posted

Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army...blah, blah, blah

The goal (as in, what people are paying for) is for the US Department of Defense to have a portfolio of capabilities with which to execute US policy. It's not this against that...all the services are complimentary in their capabilities. What may seem as duplicity in capabilities isn't the case - and why almost everything the US military does is in a Joint endeavor. The "mission" (not really an accurate descriptor) of a Rhino (E/F) (and even a F-15C) is vastly different from that of a F-22 (no /A - the last CSAF wisely killed that), so it's not an "either / or" thing. Based on how/where/why the Navy operates, the Rhino has the needed capability - the F-22 does not. Did I mention the "how they operate"? If you're not involved, that is WAY bigger than you think.

Having flown in combat as an "all Navy show", the public face is "look at us we're Gods of war"...the reality is, we didn't have the right capability mix organically from the sea and we were lucky that things didn't go as expected (as in, it worked).

Thanks for the E-2 :) Waco..we never will come close to the "Iron Triad" in capability (heck, only having 5 dudes/dudettes and 4 1/2 hours of gas limits that!), but we do our best when the big-wings are not there to take care of everyone (air and ground) and keep the fight moving.

Please resume the "Tomcat could take the F-22 any day" argument now.

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites
C-130CrewChief

C-130CrewChief

Posted
Posted

Yay for trash hauling!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also for the other stuff we do and the part where we go to the otherside of the world in a matter of hours and fix the very planes we landed on then live there for a few months. You also have to love the part where you are told to pack a bag then live on the plane for a few days because there is no "Billeting, BX, Burgerking, or Chow hall!" Just eat some native African food with no toilet around and we can talk about how EASY the USAF has it! Please don't compare services from a silly view point. I have heard that the USAf has had it easy as long as I have been in.

Months away from home no matter what service you are in sucks.

Also I think the first aircraft to enter combat in Iraq in the first Gulf War were MH-53 Pavelows. I also think they led Army helos to make it safe for the Navy and other Air Force assets........... So much for the navy first in theory.

Oh and I have to mention that when I worked Gunships in the late 90s we would send Two (yes two) AC-130H Gunships to Korea when ever the Kittyhawk had to head home. I find this Equasion interesting. 2 X Gunship = 1CBG. Looks like the Pentigon figured that a couple of vintage veteran Gunships would put the fear into those commies just as well as a big *** Carrier.

Every service has it's perks. Just look at Top Gun and Iron Eagle. I think the USAF got the shaft in that deal!

I can say alot more here but won't.

Curt.

12 years as a Herkey healer and I'll keep going till my second set of knees give out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
John B

John B

Posted
Posted
Oh, one more thing...it's "CSG" not "CBG". The "B" implies a warlike stance.

Resume....

Spongebob

Why not BSG?

400px-Www-Wikia-Battlestar-Galactica-fr.PNG

John B - just tryin to get in an irrelevant post before someone goes and gets the thread yanked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LanceB

LanceB

Posted
Posted
Yay for trash hauling!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also for the other stuff we do and the part where we go to the otherside of the world in a matter of hours and fix the very planes we landed on then live there for a few months.

Now, y'see, this is where you're doing it wrong. You are supposed to land on the runway, not land on the planes.

Just some friendly advice. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 Marine

53 Marine

Posted
Posted
I guess the key words are "capable enough" and more "affordable". And again I look back at what the USAF was flying in 2002 and it was the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon. Both supremely capable in not only their original design roles of air superiority but also later even in that time frame as mud movers. Certainly the combat numbers prove that. The Navy got a jacked up 1970's airframe that was originally suposed to be a light weight, cheap, air superiority fighter " that had lost the competition to the F-16" but was transfigured into a fighter/attack aircraft that the Navy "bought"...... or was it forced on them? My observation is that the Navy has had to compromise on it's aircraft ever since the mid 70's after the Tomcat but yet when junk starts to happen around the world, who's there first, the Navy with their carriers. So for over 35 years the Navy has had to "make due" with less than ideal, compromise aviation equipment. Not having the aircraft that is supremely right but at best, the left overs or what we can "afford". I'm sorry but I believe the Navy should have the VERY best that can be had. They really are the tip of the spear. I think 35 years of hand me down, compromise, left over designs should end. As a matter of opinion, mine, I think the USAF is an anacronism. Much like the battleships through the first half of the 20th century became obsolete in five years during the war, the USAF is a service that really is not needed in today's world. Once the cold war ended the need for an airforce on alert 24/7 became mute. Why else was SAC stood down. With Navy nuke subs roaming the world and the carrier BG's doing the same the USAF is a redundant force that sucks money up, huge amounts of money that would be better spent with the Navy. The Navy can respond much faster to any place in the world if the carriers are in theatre, which they usually are. The USAF is not a ready, mobile force that can be deployed virutally anywhere in the world at moments notice AND they need a place to go. The Navy has its own floating airfield with no restrictions. Again....my question is why do they have to compromise on their aviation capabilities when the Navy is really the the one global force we have that is obviously so important and vital? I think either the airforce has done a better job of selling congress their mission and the Navy has not. Billions for the F/A-22A and chump change for the Navy. I'm sorry but it really makes me angry.

Hmmm, so by this reasoning, the "real" tip of the Navy's Spear (being the USMC) should have top of the line equipement, developed before anyone else gets their goodies - and no more worn out hand me downs.... I thinks me likes :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
LanceB

LanceB

Posted
Posted
Hmmm, so by this reasoning, the "real" tip of the Navy's Spear (being the USMC) should have top of the line equipement, developed before anyone else gets their goodies - and no more worn out hand me downs.... I thinks me likes :)

I dunno, wouldn't that take the shine off of things? Think about it:

"What do you mean the Marines took out a small third-world country with nothing but K-bars, Tweets and tabasco packs they saved up from MREs?!?"

Or:

"Well of course the Marines destroyed Russia, they were driving brand-new M1s with Raptors flying top cover! So what?"

See what I mean? :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnico

Donnico

Posted
Posted

Just my 2 cents- and Im far from impartial being from Long Island, but it seems to me that with the mobility of the carriers, the navy would likely be first to a combat zone and first to deal with enemy air assets/defenses, so why has the navy relatively regressed in capability versus the air force?

Avionics aside (the F-14 could have been upgraded just as the F-18 has), why has the navy chosen shorter range and less capability? I'm not making the argument that the F-14 could have soldiered on indefinately; what I'm saying is that the navy has always replaced planes with newer, more capable ones. Even the biggest Phantom fan cant argue that the Tomcat wasn't an upgrade. Save the new computer systems (which could be installed in any jet), I think it would be hard to argue that the Rhino is much of an upgrade over the F-14- especially the F-14D.

IN other words, Im not upset about the Tomcat's retirement. It was time. What Im upset about is its replacement with a jet that's not discernably better. What we really neeeded was some sort of NATF and not a refried 1970's design with new CPUs. The F-14D was leaps and bounds ahead of its peers when it was released around the beginning of the '90s. We all know that is not true of the Rhino. In fact, we dont know if the Rhino is better than the F-14D. Whatever you believe, the Rhino/Tomcat case arguable and that is exactly the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sv51macross

sv51macross

Posted
Posted
Every service has it's perks. Just look at Top Gun and Iron Eagle. I think the USAF got the shaft in that deal!

I can say alot more here but won't.

Curt.

12 years as a Herkey healer and I'll keep going till my second set of knees give out!

Yeah...The Navy's movie was definitely alot better.

Just my 2 cents- and Im far from impartial being from Long Island, but it seems to me that with the mobility of the carriers, the navy would likely be first to a combat zone and first to deal with enemy air assets/defenses, so why has the navy relatively regressed in capability versus the air force?

Avionics aside (the F-14 could have been upgraded just as the F-18 has), why has the navy chosen shorter range and less capability? I'm not making the argument that the F-14 could have soldiered on indefinately; what I'm saying is that the navy has always replaced planes with newer, more capable ones. Even the biggest Phantom fan cant argue that the Tomcat wasn't an upgrade. Save the new computer systems (which could be installed in any jet), I think it would be hard to argue that the Rhino is much of an upgrade over the F-14- especially the F-14D.

IN other words, Im not upset about the Tomcat's retirement. It was time. What Im upset about is its replacement with a jet that's not discernably better. What we really neeeded was some sort of NATF and not a refried 1970's design with new CPUs. The F-14D was leaps and bounds ahead of its peers when it was released around the beginning of the '90s. We all know that is not true of the Rhino. In fact, we dont know if the Rhino is better than the F-14D. Whatever you believe, the Rhino/Tomcat case arguable and that is exactly the problem.

Well, the F-14 was a fairly old airframe, and If I remember correctly it took 40 hours of ground maintenance for every 1 hour it spent in the air. I don't know what the Rhino's is but I am sure it is less than that. Also, the Rhino represents a shift in battle tactics. The tomcat was designed as along-range bomber interceptor that could survive an engagement with escort aircraft. Now with modern military operations conducted from 'littoral' ranges, long range is not as needed as before, and the Rhino can also carry more ordinance than the Tomcat can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...