A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

Why compare? A single plane never won a war and one type of aircraft doesn't make an airforce. The A -6 was a good plane for what it was built for, same for the F-16 - use both effective and call it a day.

BTT

I think a multicrew or AI B/N is possible, but we need better ways to communicate with them. A overlay like in the huey is a good thing, but razbam surely will find a solution ;)

Not a single word from RAZBAM regarding this, was there?

If not, I guess this is now the reality:

:cry:

Razbam ordered a bunch of A-6 Cockpits - here they are ;)

Well, perhaps the first 10 preorders come with a customer cockpit lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will we also get a Willem Dafoe mask?

Will we also get a Willem Dafoe mask?

First order gets the "Tiger" mask. Runner up gets Morg. :harhar:

"Do you know who I am?"

"Third generation Mafia, Sir!"

"WRONG!!! You rodent..... I am a weapons system, I was built with this ship and there was a cost overrun!! LIEUTENANT RAZOR DISSSSSMISSED!"

I'd give my left nut, the keys and title to my prized 1972 Stingray, and probably 3 retirement checks to have this plane in DCS. I mean every word of that.

~S

Not a single word from RAZBAM regarding this, was there?

If not, I guess this is now the reality:

 

 

:cry:

This reminds me when you go buy fish and they cut the heads apart before cleaning the entrails.

"Please, 3 tons of intruder, i have a barbecue this sunday"

A F-16 can do everything better than a F-18 except land on a carrier:music_whistling:

pretty much.

of the two f16> F18 in a2a due to mach 2.0 and better P/W ratio, and also better turn rates. In fact thats exactly some of the reasons why the USAF declared the YF-16 winner of the competition over the YF-17.

Let's have the two planes go at each other and each gets a shot on each other and each loses an engine.......

Part of the USAF's decision was cheaper and lighter. Col. John Boyd was pushing the issue within the USAF for a pure knife fighter, something we hadn't had since the F-86F. The F-15 was the first product of his self taught calculus related formulas to design the perfect fighter with math. The F-15 ended up weighing a whole lot more than what was needed for a pure fighter, twin engines, radar, big plane, and he rammed his ideas back at the USAF again so that they'd end up with the right plane per his numbers.

There's a lot that the Hornet can do that the Viper cannot, and vice versa. I have seen pilots in both communities weighing in on this, and of course everyone who flies one loves one, but there are a limited number of pilots who have flown both, and even less that have employed both in a combat environment, if any, so really every single thing said here is best guess based on the literature of others. And with that also is a bias; the USN loves their twins and multi-roles. . As above the USAF thought they needed a small single engine fighter type A/C to go with its new interceptor. Politics and money "motivate" decisions, as does "if you get this for us we will have a job waiting for you in a few months when you retire, General".

Kev,of course the Viper was a better plane for accelerating or rate of turn, it weighed less than 20k pounds in testing, and the USAF got exactly what it wanted. The USN looked on, made a note, and then got exactly what it needed; they have a history of multirole aircraft with twin engines that can carry a shitload of A2G ord or hold its own in most fights.

Both planes are about even in everything......well, except the carrier stuff and the engine out drills

Let's have the two planes go at each other and each gets a shot on each other and each loses an engine.......

 

 

Part of the USAF's decision was cheaper and lighter. Col. John Boyd was pushing the issue within the USAF for a pure knife fighter, something we hadn't had since the F-86F. The F-15 was the first product of his self taught calculus related formulas to design the perfect fighter with math. The F-15 ended up weighing a whole lot more than what was needed for a pure fighter, twin engines, radar, big plane, and he rammed his ideas back at the USAF again so that they'd end up with the right plane per his numbers.

 

There's a lot that the Hornet can do that the Viper cannot, and vice versa. I have seen pilots in both communities weighing in on this, and of course everyone who flies one loves one, but there are a limited number of pilots who have flown both, and even less that have employed both in a combat environment, if any, so really every single thing said here is best guess based on the literature of others. And with that also is a bias; the USN loves their twins and multi-roles. . As above the USAF thought they needed a small single engine fighter type A/C to go with its new interceptor. Politics and money "motivate" decisions, as does "if you get this for us we will have a job waiting for you in a few months when you retire, General".

 

Kev,of course the Viper was a better plane for accelerating or rate of turn, it weighed less than 20k pounds in testing, and the USAF got exactly what it wanted. The USN looked on, made a note, and then got exactly what it needed; they have a history of multirole aircraft with twin engines that can carry a shitload of A2G ord or hold its own in most fights.

 

Both planes are about even in everything......well, except the carrier stuff and the engine out drills

Please....

both will go down. the engines on the hornet are so close together, that there is a extremely high probability missile hit would damage the second engine, to the point it will fail as well. Only when aircraft like the A10 have thier engines far apart this make a considerable difference sparing the second engine.

Colnel boyd may have has hid idea of a Knife fighter, Even the F16A was tainted by Boyd and Spreys logic because it already had plenty electronics like a HUD, Radar, RWR, and A2g modes, that they did not want it to have even though it just a IR seeker platform at the time. . the F16C blocks are more fully fledged Multi role fighter with even more electronics & BVR capability. But the USAF merely applied some of the ideas where it suited them. and it pretty much ended by having a cheaper and more maneuverable AC to compliment to the F15, but it doesnt change the Fact that MC design the YF-17 to meet similar USAF requirements as a competition the YF-16 and it lost.

I really don't need the see of your post as basically IT is more or less even AS what others and myself are saying, F16C and F/A18c are more more less even, only that F/A18 is capable of carrier ops but does not have the same top speed and p/W hence why in a2a combat its why ultimately F16 is better of the two.

having a speed, acceleration and climb advantage in addition to turn rate, is nothing to scoff at when Its capabilities for weapons employment in a2a and a2g are comparable. ( still slightly greater munitions carry in the F16) all the while costing less.

Cheaper not the only reason just the reason it was simply a better performer of the two. thats simply the reality, no need to make excuses for it, It is what it is. USn requirements, yes the YF17 design was better suited better for carrier ops, but at the cost of flight performance.

what a load of crock, if you want to hit the mach redline you have to get light and get fast and only have gas for one pass.

higher mach limit was relevant in the age of the point interceptor, but in this day and age of strike fighters and isr nobody flies like that, so what you care about is performance from cruise.

its only too bad there aren't wikipedia statsheet numbers for you to rattle off for that

what a load of crock, if you want to hit the mach redline you have to get light and get fast and only have gas for one pass.

 

higher mach limit was relevant in the age of the point interceptor, but in this day and age of strike fighters and isr nobody flies like that, so what you care about is performance from cruise.

 

its only too bad there aren't wikipedia statsheet numbers for you to rattle off for that

the Only load of crock is the the empty load of hot air responses you always give to anybody.

Read much? Apparently not. There's more than just top speed going for the F16 , ITs has better acceleration and climb rate as well as better maneuvering ability. for a2a combat that still advantageous to have.

Guys, you realize that you've resurrected a 5 month old argument unrelated to the thread topic?

So what does the F16 and F18 have to do with the our A6???

Guys, you realize that you've resurrected a 5 month old argument unrelated to the thread topic?

Not only that, it's Kev2Go *again* doing a "this plane vs that plane" which are unrelated to the actual aircraft in the topic.

Not only that, it's Kev2Go *again* doing a "this plane vs that plane" which are unrelated to the actual aircraft in the topic.

o rly now? please don't pretend like i am the only one ever guilty of digressing.

FYI i didn't start the F16 vs F18....., it was already for some reason being brought up here not long ago....

try *again* . ( or don't because its pointing fingers on who started who and such is even more OT)

So what does the F16 and F18 have to do with the our A6???

Nothing particularily.

well except maybe unless under the context of the A6 sharing the deck at some point in time with Hornet, and F14 . ( well its still unclear which time period variation of A6 we are going to get)

If we get one.....

If we get one.....

Gotta hope, gotta hope! :D

Please....

 

both will go down. the engines on the hornet are so close together, that there is a extremely high probability missile hit would damage the second engine, to the point it will fail as well. Only when aircraft like the A10 have thier engines far apart this make a considerable difference sparing the second engine.

 

A fighter plane is orders of magnitude more likely to suffer an engine failure than take shrapnel in the engine in its life in the real world. A twin like the f18 will turn your flight in a sim check ride, an f16 a bailout situation.

Now imagine this over the ocean 150 miles from the carrier. The f18 is inherently a safer design for normal operations especially over water.

A fighter plane is orders of magnitude more likely to suffer an engine failure than take shrapnel in the engine in its life in the real world. A twin like the f18 will turn your flight in a sim check ride, an f16 a bailout situation.

Now imagine this over the ocean 150 miles from the carrier. The f18 is inherently a safer design for normal operations especially over water.

F35C, one engine.

I don't think anyone can really argue this issue. The F-16 is clearly superior.

F35C, one engine.

F4, F14, F18 a6 two engines

A7, F8 one so?

Does this prove me wrong or you right?

Look at the loses in peacetime operations and training, engine failure is pretty much always at the top 3 causes.

As for the f35 argument the second engine was a small price to pay for a common airframe but every time the Navy got to pick its own hardware for the last 40 years its workhorse aircraft were primarily twins.

Single engine is good economics. Especially for land based airforces. And easy to design a fighter around. The navy wanted 2 for obvious reasons.

All the planes flying around the world now except for small fighters and private planes have two engines.

Reality check.

Well, we are because it clearly isn't.

Also, I don't know a whole lot about the Hornet, but I imagine that they have some sort of protective sleeve encasing the engines to help limit or eliminate just that problem. the A-10's engines aren't just that tough, they also have protection other than just keeping them 6 feet apart. the F-4 has something similar to help reduce dual engine destruction from damage to one engine. I realize this is more for in case there is a catastrophic failure of one engine, but it does serve as insurance if something hit one side of the plane, providing a limited degree of protection.

My argument wasn't about damage from guns taking out all engines, it was about taking out ONE engine, in which case I'd rather be in a Hornet. If we are talking about taking out any or all engines then neither plane is superior because a glider is a glider is a glider......

~S