I worked on the schematic documentation for APG-79v4. Don’t let the name fool you, it’s only at best 40% commonality with v3 which is what’s on most fleet aircraft. The nose dimensions of the C is much smaller than E/F so half of the package is redesigned and only half of those boxes share cards with the super hornet. It’s a paper project to only look like it’s affordable
@@cyrustaylor1330 no because it’s not a dinner plate. The fixed structure of the antenna is a smaller than on the super, the power supply is entirely different in both size and shape, and two sub components are combined on v4 and are separated on v3. It’s basically an entirely different radar package that functions like APG-79
@@stephanromeo684 The Rhino is/was a nickname given to the SuperHornets to distinguish them from the lighter Legacy Hornets when launching/recovering. the Rhino name was also used for the USN/USMC f-4 Phantom variants that performed carrier ops.
The USMC and the RCAF are joining forces on this project. The Canadians are upgrading two tactical squadrons (36 Jets) to this new standard out of their 99 flyable hulls. The rest are just getting comms and new navigation aids for todays air space. None of the full upgrades will involve dual seaters
the C+ Program has been delayed just as much as the F-35, lol, Cecil completed 3 units, then stopped, then did 4 more, 1 crashed, then program was suspended, the Marines re-evaluated the program, and put the program on hold, then the F-35 was delayed again, so the program was restarted. C+ is basically going to be Lot 27 Avionics retrofitted into a early lot legacy, likely lot 15 or newer. they are stripping them down to the frame at the depot and replacing everything. The USN Moved the legacy hornets retirement up to give the USMC parts and airframes years ago.
@@corvanphoenix every new block and every new TR, issues. Dont flush the toilet in pre-flight, the .0000000000000215 shift in gravity may break the F-35 INS system.
Fat Amy is the Windows Vista of 5th Gen Fighters... Its the Fighter that comes next everyone would want. This was the fighter designed to replace what everyone was comfortable with.
Such a small budget that even as the red headed step child of the US military they still possess more combat air power than most of the worlds dedicated air forces...
I think the USMC made a huge mistake purchasing the F-35B. It is overly extensive and the VTOL is not needed in combat. The should have bought the Super Hornet and rolled the savings into the ground forces.
The Marines seem to always have the older hardware... If the F-35B deliveries keep getting delayed, they may have to drag the AV8B Harriers out of mothballs and upgrade them too!
I remember the early days of my Naval career. We went on DET to NAS Miramar over in hangar 2 in the mid 80's. One day I walked over to hangar 1 (on the flight line side) and saw an entire NARF center barrel replacement team at work on the F-14A's. They were also replacing the hydraulic lines. I probably spent a couple hours there bugging the guys and watching them work. I have friends that worked on legacy bugs at Cecil Field doing the same thing. Nothing changes.
gonky shaved. I feel like this is a war-crime. Went from a 10/10 FILF to a weird uncle who looks like he bicycles in lycra but super slow and on main roads only.
When I got out the Marines and went back to college, there were some Marine Delta Hornets from VMFA-225 that came out to KCLL for a flyover for the football game that weekend. Must have been fall of 2004. I worked on Phrogs prior to so while I got up close to Harriers when we were composite, I never got to see much of any their Hornets. I liked how the Marines utilized the twin seat Delta Hornets for FAC(A) but was surprised to learn how the USN didn't want these things on their carrier decks because they didn't have a whole lot of fuel for comfortable blue water ops. (the spot for the 2nd ejection seat took a fuel tank out in the middle of the fuselage.) I've been saying ever since that the Marines needed as little as just 4 squadrons of F/A-18F's to replace their Delta Hornets and then they could finally put those aircraft back into the rotation for the CVW's, that the Navy so desperately wanted. Oh no, that would have made too much sense as the Corps would later buy F-35C's instead so they could help the Navy meet the minimum aircraft necessary to keep the CVW staffed. Much like with the V-22's, Marines often like to do things the hard way and at times their stubbornness ails them.
You're correct about the lack of juice in the legacy models, not to mention zero guts or legs when carrying a load; NAVAIR didn't solve that until the Supers came out. NAVAIR ended up using the -Fs for the FAC(A) roll when called upon.
I feel bad for the Marines. They're stuck in an existential crisis. The V-22 and F-35B were cutting edge advanced programs they didn't have experience in managing or partnering in. With the projected ship-to-shore range ever increasing they're feeling the pressure to find a way to stay in the strategic arsenal.
@@AirRyanTXThe A-6E had a very specialized mission (all weather low alt surface attack) but was PHENOMENAL at it, and had they still been around during GWOT they probably wouldve ended up as great CAS/FAC-A platforms
The Corps cut a deal with the Navy back in the 90s known as TACAIR Integration which requires that they provide a minimum of two VMFA squadrons to two separate CVWs and an additional two if needed. That explains the fact that there will eventually be four F-35C equipped VMFAs. The Navy then agreed to supply two VFA squadrons for the UDP in Iwakuni. That was before the CVW was relocated from Atsugi to Iwakuni. If the Navy had its act together it wouldn't have to rely on the Marine Corps to fulfill its TOEs.
You are definitely right about the extra power draw on the new setup... I think it would have to have a generator upgrade, and probably a rewire... it's going to be a pain-in-the-ass I'm sure.
The 79v4 is GaN-based which is far more power efficient than the GaAs in the others and it's not as big as the 79 on Super. That's one aspect how it can work with the power and cooling constraints.
yup, all 94 Cf-18A/B's are getting the HEP-1 (Hornet Extension Project) upgrades while 36 CF-18A's are getting the HEP-2 upgrades. AIm-120D, AIM-9X-II and JSOW will take our Hornets out to 50 years service and beyond. Work is underway as I type.
Gonky, just a comment on the fuel tank discussion tween you and Wombat. We ditched the double bubble on the A-4F in my squadron in 1974 and flew with a single on the centerline. Great new CO tactical decision! We only had 5 stations, so freed up one for ordinance. Only put a double on cross country a/c for more range.
Not good for 35 program when the services are filling the gaps with upgrading legacy airframes. Maybe try putting super hornet engines in legacy hornet somehow.
The marines should have asked us for our classic Hornets! We ended up selling ours to Canada for parts instead! Well, there was the whole centre fuselage issue, so maybe not, but still... It would have been a better use considering Canada also only want an interim solution until they get the F-35 too.
The only problem is, how to land A-10s on aircraft carrier or amphibious assay ships. Marine fighter or attack aircraft must be able to operate from one of these ships.
@@hoghogwild Correct. But these legacy Hornets and the aviators that fly them are all carrier qualified. USMC is transitioning to F-35B and F-35C Lightning II. In a nutshell, all Marine aircraft must be carrier qualified. Although the A-10s are very good and capable doing what they are designed for, USMC will not want them due to constraints in their budget that they bypassed Super Hornets while getting many new aircraft such as F-35s, V-22 Ospreys, CH-53K King Stallions.
The Marines won’t buy entire new planes that they’re just going to divest from in ten years. We don’t have USAF-level funding to waste, especially not when we already have to pay for Ospreys and F-35s.
Of course they get an electrics upgrade with extra electronics you also remove a lot of old wiring and systems. They have a jet for mock up and testing they know it’s going to work well before they start the SLEP
@@SkateZillaSimulationsnot as much as a dedicated fuel tank and not to mention the absolutely ridiculous maintenance issues you’re going to run into combining Fuel and avionics. Saw it on the buddy pods those things chewed through the connectors
I think it would be a lot easier for the Marine Corps to buy super hornets instead of sending legacy hornets to Depot level maintenance and overhauling a whole bunch of electronic material rewiring the things to run the AESA radar and just like you said Gonkey they will probably have to do a generator upgrade if not see about overhauling the engines to the engines at the originally planned to put on the block three with the EPE Upgrade just to run that radar and those avionics. It would just be easier / cheeper for them to buy Rhinos 🦏 They already have all of that installed.
Maybe a dumb question but...what are the USMC F-18s taking off from? I thought the whole point of Harriers and F-35 B was to be able to take off and land from smaller ships than aircraft carriers.
Initially the Hornets are for Tacair integration with the Navy, meaning some squadrons would be deployed on big deck carriers alongside with the navy dudes. Now this mission is passed onto the four squadrons of Marine F-35Cs. The Marine hornets will now operate from land.
@@Cynic_6489 No, they don't operate ANY Legacy Hornets from carriers anymore and Marine Corps Hornet deployments on carriers were never a normal thing. They kept some currency during the carrier life of the F-18A-D models by occasional carrier qualifications but Marine Hornets were not routinely deployed on carriers. They DID base some Marine Hornet squadrons in the early days of the F-18 to get experience since the Navy was slowly phasing out the A-7 over the course of about 10 years. The Marines never bought the A-7; they kept their A-4s and replaced those with the Harrier II. I think the F-18 first deployed on carriers in 1985. Priority for F-18 upgrading was given to the Marines so they could retire their F-4s; Marines had F-4s five years longer than the US Navy! The Navy retired something like half its F-4s with F-14s. The remainder of the F-4s and A-7s were replaced by the F-18. The USMC F-18s are very worn. They're beyond the safety limit for carrier operations. US F-18s (Legacy) are among the most worn fourth-generation American fighters. The Australian Hornets (A/B models) were in much better condition when they were retired since they were never carrier-based. Aussie Hornets also had desert bases which stressed planes less than being based in saltwater environments which raised corrosion levels for the US planes.
Not a dumb question at all.The USMC had some Shore Squadrons and some Boat Squadrons. With platforms like the Harrier and Hornet going away, the F-35s were following the same structure, some VMFAs flying F-35Cs will support CVWs and some flying F-35Bs will deploy as the Harriers did to LHA/LHDs. The newest USMC Hornets were F/A-18 Deltas which originally were for Thailand. The Marines took them after Thailand defaulted on payments. Currently, the Marines fly Hornets in mixed Squadrons of F/A-18Charlies and Deltas. Prior to ten years ago, VMFA(AW) Deltas had WSOs and usually two to three ATARS Recon Hornets. The Corps decided to go to all pilots so the ECMOs and WSO pipeline retired with the Prowler.
@@00calvinlee00 Interesting. I assumed the marines were contained to their own fleet of amphibious landing ships and flat tops. It does make sense that they would want their own land based assets and not depend and other branches.
You should change the title to say which F18s(A-G) for dweebs like me in a hurry.....because I believe the Marines are even flying the A/B models still...anyway in a hurry, gotta go for now
I wish the Marines ordered the Super Hornet too. Do you think they could actually be delivered before the F-35 production issues are resolved? Also, is the F-35 well suited for the close air support the Marines require?
Several decades ago the Corps made it unambiguously clear to the world that is was moving to one tactical airframe. Buying Super Bugs doesn't comply with that goal and Super Bugs can't operate from LHAs and LHDs.
*grumbles* Clicked baited by your thumbnail ("Is that a 4000 Trailer I'm seeing? NOT an ETU-110/E?")... and you didn't even show the pic itself... #NASWOGS
USMC Aviation was overly hopeful with its F-35, V-22 & CH-53K programs. They should've hedged themselves by purchasing 1-2 squadrons of F/A-18G's in the Australia configuration....plumbed wings for EW kit that can be removed for standard CAS work.
Doing that would have meant that they would continue to not have control of an asset. That's what happened when the Prowler was declared a national asset and Marine Air lost control of the VMAQs. Never again.
Should buy the Marines some new Super Hornets instead. They have some of the oldest fighters in the US military. Of course they will still want to get F-35s and they should get them. Then if F-35 deliveries catch up, the Navy can inherit aircraft from the Marines instead of the other way around as usual. Put the hornets and high hour older super hornets in the desert as war reserves.
@@DonWan47 Several decades ago the Corps made it unambiguously clear that it was moving to a single tactical airframe fleet. It never had any interest in the Super Bug for that reason alone.
@@DonWan47 Buying Super Bugs would have reduced their F-35 buy and would have given the NAVAIR camel another opportunity to stick its nose further under the tent. Reality is wasted on the obtuse.
Algorithmic engagement comment.
😐
Here
I worked on the schematic documentation for APG-79v4. Don’t let the name fool you, it’s only at best 40% commonality with v3 which is what’s on most fleet aircraft. The nose dimensions of the C is much smaller than E/F so half of the package is redesigned and only half of those boxes share cards with the super hornet. It’s a paper project to only look like it’s affordable
What’s the biggest difference between flying the Rhino and super hornet ?
I guess with AESA you cant just swap out the dinner plate for a smaller one like on commercial wx rdr?
@@cyrustaylor1330 no because it’s not a dinner plate. The fixed structure of the antenna is a smaller than on the super, the power supply is entirely different in both size and shape, and two sub components are combined on v4 and are separated on v3. It’s basically an entirely different radar package that functions like APG-79
@@stephanromeo684 The Rhino is/was a nickname given to the SuperHornets to distinguish them from the lighter Legacy Hornets when launching/recovering. the Rhino name was also used for the USN/USMC f-4 Phantom variants that performed carrier ops.
@@hoghogwild ah thank you sir ! I meant what’s the biggest difference between the legacy and super hornet
Man those legacy hornets are beautiful.
Couldn't agree more. Super Hornet is just gross.
@@braeddieit looks better than the legacy and is better is every way😂
@@grantjones522 Sure, if you're blind.
@@grantjones522better in capabilities but not looks
I wish I could get a dummy one to display in my yard x.x I made this account when I worked on them, it was one of the best times of my life.
The USMC and the RCAF are joining forces on this project. The Canadians are upgrading two tactical squadrons (36 Jets) to this new standard out of their 99 flyable hulls. The rest are just getting comms and new navigation aids for todays air space. None of the full upgrades will involve dual seaters
the C+ Program has been delayed just as much as the F-35, lol,
Cecil completed 3 units, then stopped, then did 4 more, 1 crashed, then program was suspended, the Marines re-evaluated the program, and put the program on hold, then the F-35 was delayed again, so the program was restarted.
C+ is basically going to be Lot 27 Avionics retrofitted into a early lot legacy, likely lot 15 or newer. they are stripping them down to the frame at the depot and replacing everything.
The USN Moved the legacy hornets retirement up to give the USMC parts and airframes years ago.
It's very trippy to realise we've been talking about F-35 software issues for over 20 years now.
@@corvanphoenix every new block and every new TR, issues.
Dont flush the toilet in pre-flight, the .0000000000000215 shift in gravity may break the F-35 INS system.
@@SkateZillaSimulations you kidding? You rip a Fart in the F-35 and half of the Systems break.
@@ligmasack9038dont plan any flights on DST transistion either.
Fat Amy is the Windows Vista of 5th Gen Fighters...
Its the Fighter that comes next everyone would want. This was the fighter designed to replace what everyone was comfortable with.
I hope they're going to make the RAAF choice & get Growler capable upgrades, just in case...
RAAF would be better off with EW capable Eagle II to replace all of their growlers and super hornets.
Marine Corps has such a small budget that they have no choice but to continue to use the Legacy Hornets.
Such a small budget that even as the red headed step child of the US military they still possess more combat air power than most of the worlds dedicated air forces...
I think the USMC made a huge mistake purchasing the F-35B. It is overly extensive and the VTOL is not needed in combat. The should have bought the Super Hornet and rolled the savings into the ground forces.
You are not wrong Sir!
I was wondering about those asymmetric tank configs. Cool to know! Also, loved to see both of you having a good time 👍
At least on the ol' A-6 Intruder the TRAM (FLIR/Laser ) turret was under the radome, giving 360 degrees of B/N visiblity....
The Marines seem to always have the older hardware... If the F-35B deliveries keep getting delayed, they may have to drag the AV8B Harriers out of mothballs and upgrade them too!
I remember the early days of my Naval career.
We went on DET to NAS Miramar over in hangar 2 in the mid 80's.
One day I walked over to hangar 1 (on the flight line side) and saw an entire NARF center barrel replacement team at work on the F-14A's.
They were also replacing the hydraulic lines.
I probably spent a couple hours there bugging the guys and watching them work.
I have friends that worked on legacy bugs at Cecil Field doing the same thing.
Nothing changes.
gonky shaved. I feel like this is a war-crime. Went from a 10/10 FILF to a weird uncle who looks like he bicycles in lycra but super slow and on main roads only.
When I got out the Marines and went back to college, there were some Marine Delta Hornets from VMFA-225 that came out to KCLL for a flyover for the football game that weekend. Must have been fall of 2004. I worked on Phrogs prior to so while I got up close to Harriers when we were composite, I never got to see much of any their Hornets. I liked how the Marines utilized the twin seat Delta Hornets for FAC(A) but was surprised to learn how the USN didn't want these things on their carrier decks because they didn't have a whole lot of fuel for comfortable blue water ops. (the spot for the 2nd ejection seat took a fuel tank out in the middle of the fuselage.)
I've been saying ever since that the Marines needed as little as just 4 squadrons of F/A-18F's to replace their Delta Hornets and then they could finally put those aircraft back into the rotation for the CVW's, that the Navy so desperately wanted. Oh no, that would have made too much sense as the Corps would later buy F-35C's instead so they could help the Navy meet the minimum aircraft necessary to keep the CVW staffed. Much like with the V-22's, Marines often like to do things the hard way and at times their stubbornness ails them.
You're correct about the lack of juice in the legacy models, not to mention zero guts or legs when carrying a load; NAVAIR didn't solve that until the Supers came out. NAVAIR ended up using the -Fs for the FAC(A) roll when called upon.
@@corsair6 It's almost like the Marines had more capability with their A-6E or even an F-4S.
I feel bad for the Marines. They're stuck in an existential crisis. The V-22 and F-35B were cutting edge advanced programs they didn't have experience in managing or partnering in. With the projected ship-to-shore range ever increasing they're feeling the pressure to find a way to stay in the strategic arsenal.
@@AirRyanTXThe A-6E had a very specialized mission (all weather low alt surface attack) but was PHENOMENAL at it, and had they still been around during GWOT they probably wouldve ended up as great CAS/FAC-A platforms
The Corps cut a deal with the Navy back in the 90s known as TACAIR Integration which requires that they provide a minimum of two VMFA squadrons to two separate CVWs and an additional two if needed. That explains the fact that there will eventually be four F-35C equipped VMFAs. The Navy then agreed to supply two VFA squadrons for the UDP in Iwakuni. That was before the CVW was relocated from Atsugi to Iwakuni.
If the Navy had its act together it wouldn't have to rely on the Marine Corps to fulfill its TOEs.
You are definitely right about the extra power draw on the new setup... I think it would have to have a generator upgrade, and probably a rewire... it's going to be a pain-in-the-ass I'm sure.
The 79v4 is GaN-based which is far more power efficient than the GaAs in the others and it's not as big as the 79 on Super. That's one aspect how it can work with the power and cooling constraints.
Had to google image "double ugly hornet" lol, thing looks so awkward.
We are in the process of putting that same AESA radar into our CF-18A's currently. Don't laugh guys! Its a game changer.
yup, all 94 Cf-18A/B's are getting the HEP-1 (Hornet Extension Project) upgrades while 36 CF-18A's are getting the HEP-2 upgrades. AIm-120D, AIM-9X-II and JSOW will take our Hornets out to 50 years service and beyond. Work is underway as I type.
Thanks
Thank you for the support!!!
Very cool!
Gonky, just a comment on the fuel tank discussion tween you and Wombat. We ditched the double bubble on the A-4F in my squadron in 1974 and flew with a single on the centerline. Great new CO tactical decision! We only had 5 stations, so freed up one for ordinance. Only put a double on cross country a/c for more range.
ordnance
Not good for 35 program when the services are filling the gaps with upgrading legacy airframes. Maybe try putting super hornet engines in legacy hornet somehow.
The marines should have asked us for our classic Hornets! We ended up selling ours to Canada for parts instead! Well, there was the whole centre fuselage issue, so maybe not, but still... It would have been a better use considering Canada also only want an interim solution until they get the F-35 too.
Canada took 25, 18 flyable, 7 for parts. RCAF now has 94 flyable in CF-188 specs.
I bet they could get a fantastic deal for A-10's. USAF would probably just give them away for free.
Don't want or need the A-10.
The only problem is, how to land A-10s on aircraft carrier or amphibious assay ships. Marine fighter or attack aircraft must be able to operate from one of these ships.
@@user-pj3ch8ou2h USMC Legacy Hornets haven't performed carrier ops for years now.
@@hoghogwild Correct. But these legacy Hornets and the aviators that fly them are all carrier qualified. USMC is transitioning to F-35B and F-35C Lightning II. In a nutshell, all Marine aircraft must be carrier qualified. Although the A-10s are very good and capable doing what they are designed for, USMC will not want them due to constraints in their budget that they bypassed Super Hornets while getting many new aircraft such as F-35s, V-22 Ospreys, CH-53K King Stallions.
Yut!
Oh and good point on the generations, they still haven’t fixed that on supers either it’s only going to be worse on legacy
Taj Sareen might still be alive if the USMC hadn't cheaped out and kept legacy Hornets. Good dude, RIP.
F/A 18 pack mule on steroids. Beautiful airplane.
How many hours are the wing spars good for or have they been upgraded?
Are they going to have to start g-limiting those older birds?
The upgrades we need are the E and F.
100%
The Marines won’t buy entire new planes that they’re just going to divest from in ten years. We don’t have USAF-level funding to waste, especially not when we already have to pay for Ospreys and F-35s.
Nope
Of course they get an electrics upgrade with extra electronics you also remove a lot of old wiring and systems. They have a jet for mock up and testing they know it’s going to work well before they start the SLEP
These Hornets are NOT being up-engined or having their structure reworked/reinforced????
Latter is possible, former is not that useful I believe, they are intake flow limited.
@@mimimimeow So thats what the limiting factor is? The 404 and the 414 share the same footprint and weigh within 160 pounds of each other.
Speaking of Upgrades, what are peoples opinion on the Super Hornet's IRST mounted on the center drop tank.
@@maddthomas They shoud rename it Super Beetle, cause at this point everythi g they add to the airframe is drag galore.
Better than nothing
It’s not gonna stick. That’s a serious range imitation getting rid of a drop tank instead of just leaving the FLIR pod on the hip
@@loganvelasco1889 the IRST pod carries fuel as well.
@@SkateZillaSimulationsnot as much as a dedicated fuel tank and not to mention the absolutely ridiculous maintenance issues you’re going to run into combining Fuel and avionics. Saw it on the buddy pods those things chewed through the connectors
I think it would be a lot easier for the Marine Corps to buy super hornets instead of sending legacy hornets to Depot level maintenance and overhauling a whole bunch of electronic material rewiring the things to run the AESA radar and just like you said Gonkey they will probably have to do a generator upgrade if not see about overhauling the engines to the engines at the originally planned to put on the block three with the EPE Upgrade just to run that radar and those avionics. It would just be easier / cheeper for them to buy Rhinos 🦏 They already have all of that installed.
New engines?
Sadly. We need another new aircraft that replaces the F/A-18. Another twin engine .
Likely gonna turn out more expensive than buying new Bugs ...
Maybe a dumb question but...what are the USMC F-18s taking off from? I thought the whole point of Harriers and F-35 B was to be able to take off and land from smaller ships than aircraft carriers.
there are USMC F/A-18 squadrons in carriers i think.
Initially the Hornets are for Tacair integration with the Navy, meaning some squadrons would be deployed on big deck carriers alongside with the navy dudes. Now this mission is passed onto the four squadrons of Marine F-35Cs. The Marine hornets will now operate from land.
@@Cynic_6489 No, they don't operate ANY Legacy Hornets from carriers anymore and Marine Corps Hornet deployments on carriers were never a normal thing. They kept some currency during the carrier life of the F-18A-D models by occasional carrier qualifications but Marine Hornets were not routinely deployed on carriers. They DID base some Marine Hornet squadrons in the early days of the F-18 to get experience since the Navy was slowly phasing out the A-7 over the course of about 10 years. The Marines never bought the A-7; they kept their A-4s and replaced those with the Harrier II.
I think the F-18 first deployed on carriers in 1985. Priority for F-18 upgrading was given to the Marines so they could retire their F-4s; Marines had F-4s five years longer than the US Navy! The Navy retired something like half its F-4s with F-14s. The remainder of the F-4s and A-7s were replaced by the F-18.
The USMC F-18s are very worn. They're beyond the safety limit for carrier operations. US F-18s (Legacy) are among the most worn fourth-generation American fighters. The Australian Hornets (A/B models) were in much better condition when they were retired since they were never carrier-based. Aussie Hornets also had desert bases which stressed planes less than being based in saltwater environments which raised corrosion levels for the US planes.
Not a dumb question at all.The USMC had some Shore Squadrons and some Boat Squadrons. With platforms like the Harrier and Hornet going away, the F-35s were following the same structure, some VMFAs flying F-35Cs will support CVWs and some flying F-35Bs will deploy as the Harriers did to LHA/LHDs. The newest USMC Hornets were F/A-18 Deltas which originally were for Thailand. The Marines took them after Thailand defaulted on payments. Currently, the Marines fly Hornets in mixed Squadrons of F/A-18Charlies and Deltas. Prior to ten years ago, VMFA(AW) Deltas had WSOs and usually two to three ATARS Recon Hornets. The Corps decided to go to all pilots so the ECMOs and WSO pipeline retired with the Prowler.
@@00calvinlee00 Interesting. I assumed the marines were contained to their own fleet of amphibious landing ships and flat tops. It does make sense that they would want their own land based assets and not depend and other branches.
You should change the title to say which F18s(A-G) for dweebs like me in a hurry.....because I believe the Marines are even flying the A/B models still...anyway in a hurry, gotta go for now
USMC have never flown the Rhino(E/F/G), only USN. The title infers that people know this.
@@hoghogwild they don’t fly Supers?! I would think disambiguating between A-D would still be helpful
@@leftseat30 No, the only SuperHornets in US service or that have ever been in US service are with the Navy.
I wish the Marines ordered the Super Hornet too. Do you think they could actually be delivered before the F-35 production issues are resolved? Also, is the F-35 well suited for the close air support the Marines require?
Several decades ago the Corps made it unambiguously clear to the world that is was moving to one tactical airframe. Buying Super Bugs doesn't comply with that goal and Super Bugs can't operate from LHAs and LHDs.
Just give them the super hornets lol
The jet they should have bought...
@@themoverandgonkyshow I guess Marines like doing things the hard way.
Nope
@@AA-xo9uw yes
B Model F-35 is a complete failure and waste of money. They could rehab a bunch of A/B/C/D F-18's and have a more capable force. 😉
They should have bought the Super Hornet.
Nope
Legacy hornets 😩😩💦💦
*grumbles* Clicked baited by your thumbnail ("Is that a 4000 Trailer I'm seeing? NOT an ETU-110/E?")... and you didn't even show the pic itself... #NASWOGS
🔥🔥📈🆙🦅🏴☠️🤌🤌
A lot of the USMC C's and D's are old Navy junk.
USMC Aviation was overly hopeful with its F-35, V-22 & CH-53K programs.
They should've hedged themselves by purchasing 1-2 squadrons of F/A-18G's in the Australia configuration....plumbed wings for EW kit that can be removed for standard CAS work.
Doing that would have meant that they would continue to not have control of an asset. That's what happened when the Prowler was declared a national asset and Marine Air lost control of the VMAQs. Never again.
@@AA-xo9uw Remove the EW pods and focus on CAS work.
@@AA-xo9uw Did the national asset status for Prolwer occur around the time the EF-111A Raven went away?(1998'ish?)
Should buy the Marines some new Super Hornets instead. They have some of the oldest fighters in the US military. Of course they will still want to get F-35s and they should get them. Then if F-35 deliveries catch up, the Navy can inherit aircraft from the Marines instead of the other way around as usual. Put the hornets and high hour older super hornets in the desert as war reserves.
If....
@@DonWan47 Several decades ago the Corps made it unambiguously clear that it was moving to a single tactical airframe fleet. It never had any interest in the Super Bug for that reason alone.
@@DonWan47 Buying Super Bugs would have reduced their F-35 buy and would have given the NAVAIR camel another opportunity to stick its nose further under the tent. Reality is wasted on the obtuse.
You can rebuild them all you want it’s not the same they aren’t as reliable as factory new these are old old old jets