Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CVJ who wrote (800)	2/14/2001 2:03:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

I think you're right on that account. The navy has specific standards like a ruggedized airframe to withstand the shock of catapult take-offs and tail-hook landings. And from I could see of the proposal I read, they are going to offer exactly that. But the Air Force fighter doesn't have to be especially maneuverable due to its stealth characteristics. Btw, the F-111 was supposed to be a joint-service interceptor. But the navy went with the F-14. But the F-4 is a shining example of a great aircraft that met the needs of every service. Loud as hell though... Regards, Ron

To: CVJ who wrote (800)	2/18/2001 10:00:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

The military has a less than stellar record with a joint service fighter. The F-15 and the F-18 started out as the same plane for the Air Force and the Navy. Different loading requirements for carrier landings and take-off resulted in the Navy needing a separate version, and thus was born the F-18. I thought it was the F-16 and F-18 not the 15 and 18. The F-16 and The F-18 where different planes competeing for the air force contract and the F-16 won but the F-18 winded up getting developed for the navy. I might be wrong but that's how I remember it. Tim