That is the point. We can add all the tanks we want to the Hornet we aren't paying for a stealth fighter with it.
And we can add all the tanks we want to the F-35 for NORPATs and have a much greater range.
Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:51 PM
That is the point. We can add all the tanks we want to the Hornet we aren't paying for a stealth fighter with it.
Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:07 PM
And if you need to go stealth, then you drop them. If you drop them from a SH...you have a SH. Also, the F-35 has more than some stealth.
Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:19 PM
That really isn't the point. The point is once we add the tanks it doesn't have stealth so why pay for stealth at all?
Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:26 PM
It is stealth it just can't be used. I wonder if all those dropped tanks Harper calculated in the life cycle costs?
Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:34 PM
That really isn't my point is it?
Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:40 PM
Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
---Cletus
Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:51 PM
Edited by DogOnPorch, 26 April 2012 - 09:59 PM.
Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
---Cletus
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:47 PM
the retired CF-18 'fleet manager's' statement suggests the F-35 has less range than the CF-18... and that from a Canadian north patrol/reconnaissance aspect, the F-35 is disadvantaged in relation to the CF-18. This same range reference shows up, many times over across various sites... if the guy has it wrong, if all these other appearances of the same reference are wrong, just what are the range numbers that would correspond to that type of flight mode; i.e., patrol/reconnaissance?No, his opinion is just that and, based on when he retired, his opinion isn’t anymore valid then anyone else’s outside of the program.
Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:18 AM
the retired CF-18 'fleet manager's' statement suggests the F-35 has less range than the CF-18
Edited by Smallc, 27 April 2012 - 07:19 AM.