No it isn't. Thats one of those myths that will never die.Originally Posted by StevoJH
The F-18 did not share a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17. It was a completely new aircraft.
The Hornet was structurally a far cry from the Cobra.
You can see it just by standing next to both of them.
From Wiki
Since the LWF (F-16 competition) did not share the design requirements of the VFAX (Navy requirement) the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17.
I'd say that the McDonnel Douglas/Northrop partnership that went into building the hornet created an evolutionary design based on lessons learned from the prototypes built for the lightweight fighter program. I don't think anyone would say they were the same airplane or even that the hornet was just a navalized cobra. I do think most people would say that northrop took alot of lessons learned from one and applied it to the next as well as using some similiar design elements.
I think the same arguement could be made for the hornet / superhornet designs. They initially had fairly decent avionics interchangability but that is no longer really true, and have never had any signifcant structural parts compatibility.
All 3 planes have a similiar profile visually however which means that alot of people think they have alot more in common than what they really do.
All the American ones mentioned. The F-14, F/A-18, A-4, F-4, F-8, A-7, A-6.
Designed from day 1 as carrier aircraft.
*IMO, F-14 was a one of kind plane, that is too take noting away from the F-4's.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
And the Air Force fought tooth and nail against the Rhino and SLUF and learned to love them.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is to know to not use it in a fruit salad.
Really? I was under the impression that coalition troops never hit 200,000 after the initial draw down.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Hence the "almost". The point was, it took nearly as many as Shinseki estimated and it was still a bloody near-run thing.
And a successful conclusion is still not assured.
That is a loose definition of the word, partnership. The Navy saw the YF-17 had potential as a replacement for the A-4 and A-7 as a light attack aircraft and the F-4 as a fighter because the YF-16 was unacceptible. BUT, the Navy still wanted no part of Jack Northrop's company. The excuse was that Northrop had no experience in naval aircraft design. So, the naval variant was to be produced by McDD and Northrop was to produce the land variant the F/A-18L.
Originally, the McDD was to produce two variants, one an attack aircraft and the other a fighter. Later software advanced to the point where the two functions could be combined into one aircraft.
Don't forget the B-66 or AD-3 Skywarrior.All the American ones mentioned. The F-14, F/A-18, A-4, F-4, F-8, A-7, A-6.
Designed from day 1 as carrier aircraft.
Officially, it did not... it topped 150K people but, there were enough Blackwater contractors (approx. 100K people) doing virtually everything our troops and support people were doing. The Blackwater folks wore the same clothing, helmets, guns and, used the same vehicles... so the bad guys never could tell the difference between military and employees of Blackwater.
When the press was saying the US had lost 4,000 troops, the bad guys were saying the actual number was around 7,000 people. The difference was the casualties of Blackwater, which was not widely publicized.
Slightly more than half is the same as "nearly as many?"
100,000?!Got a link for that?
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
I don't have the numbers in front of me and I doubt the true numbers will ever be made public anyway.
The point is that several hundred thousand troops is exactly what most likely could have prevented the last 7 years of unremitting insurgency.
Yeah, I'd kinda like to see that as well...100,000 Blackwater or even Blackwater style contractors?100,000?!
My 1st instincts is to trust Adrian. He has been upfront so far ... However, for reference, I do like a source.
Chimo
My only problem is that, looking at the surge, we seem to have needed only 20,000 more troops to turn the tide. I suppose the thing is at that point there were enough Iraqi forces to take a lot of the load?
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
130-150,000 US personnel plus about 10,000 more from the allies and 103 Iraqi combat battalions out of a total Iraqi strength of 270,000 (2/07). For a rough guesstimate of 310-360,000 troops.
Iraqi Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well I think the F-22 is dead as far as more being built. 180 some planes is an awfully small number to depend on for dedicated A-A for the next 30 years IMO. Of course who knows how the world will look then? I guess the idea is if a situation does come up where we need more F-22's that the stuff is really hitting the fan and people won't balk at the massive upstart costs.
House cuts F-22 funding, nixes other weapons cuts - Yahoo! News
Well the die is cast and now is the time to see what the F-35 is made of.
funny how you seem to latch onto the comments you made above, when there are other articles that take exactly those comments and counter them to a T.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: