F/A-18 Hornet AKA Flying Coffin

Carrier landings.

One just crashed in Switzerland killing the pilot.

Junk American made shit, that's why.

>buying jets that require codes from the USA one a week to be able to operate.

Wew lad

>>31168279


wut

>>31168292
The US defense shit sends activation codes to all countries that have US made jets once a week. Without these codes they can't literally fly the planes.

This is done so that in case of war with the USA, they won't be able to use those airplanes.

>>31168279
Yea, no shit. I'm pissed off, because our government payed so many millions for this crap and we have now lost a grand total of 4 out of 26 that we purchased. Fuck the US.

>>31168299

But what if you have acces to the source code, like in licence produced F-16's?

>>31168311
Those are old and outdated.

Do you think the Us would sell modern jets without any way to deactivate them in case of trouble with those countries?

>>31168279
Design your own jet then you mountain nigger

File: `.png (696B, 1715x47px) Image search: [Google]

696B, 1715x47px

this thread

File: medium.jpg (207KB, 900x661px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 900x661px

>>31168261

Should have bought those Gripens a year ago huh?

(Wich by the way is the safest 4th gen aircraft available)

>>31168261

This is not how you into stats. Consider the number of successful sorties vs unsuccessful sorties.

>>31168299
>The US defense shit sends activation codes to all countries that have US made jets once a week. Without these codes they can't literally fly the planes.

Proof?

>>31168303

Don't be retarded, the last two F-18s (literally five seconds in google) went down because of pliot error, not mechanical fault. You need to train your pilots better.

>>31168380
That looks like it's from the Vietnam era.

>>31168299
what a load of shit. no air force would accept that.

>>31168279

>New US code arrives
>It ain't me

I bet this guy thinks the USA is a corporation too.

>>31168646
Technically you could actually make that argument of the military-industrial complex in the USA.

I would only add: the USA is a corporation whose board of directors is Jewish and whose only true goal is to safeguard the future of Israel.

>>31168687
You could make the argument that it is RUN that way, sure. But that doesn't mean it is one.

>>31168347
>mountain nigger
They are mountain jews, faggot

>>31168299
This is absolute bullshit, foreign operators usually have their own software in the aircraft or atleast have full access to the source code, only thing foreigners need from the US is GPS military encryption codes.

>>31168687
The autism is strong with this one.

>>31168261
>doesn't tell us how many of those pilots died
>implies it kills pilots left and right with bait thread title
>doesn't mention they've been in use for 30 years with thousands and thousands of cumulative sorties
>doesn't talk about actual failure rates

Are you pretending to be retarded anon?

>>31168733
>pretending

>>31168279
This is what vatniks actually believe.

>>31168750
Mig 21s are literally better than the Fag 18's that america uses. In every single parameter the mig 21's are above. amerifats actually believe their equipment is the best.

You may make it the first but never the best. Just like how flanker is the best 4th gen plane.

>>31168299
What leads of bullshit, if it was true, countries would fly Tucano, than this flying piece of crap. No country would accept this

>>31168261

this just in, fighter aviation is dangerous.

>>31168380
I wouldn't mind Pilatus developing their own jet aircraft. Apparently making jet engines is incredibly difficult. Still, it's not as if we are lacking good engineers in our country.

>>31168783
Vatnicks don't do into fishing.
Oldbootonahook.tiff

>>31168967

if you decide to build a competitive modern fighter now, you'll get your product in 2030.

>>31169028
Do you actually think that? 2030 is quite soon. I would probably have guessed 2040 for deployment.

>>31169045

you're right, 2040 for a small nation who hasn't ever built a jet fighter and has no industrial base to build one. 2030 for a larger nation with experience.

>>31168967
Just import the engines and build the airframe yourself like everyone else does.

>>31168261
>I just checked the official statistics
got a link to that saucy?

File: 1461680912300.jpg (9KB, 205x205px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 205x205px

>>31168741

>>31169135
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=F18

File: DN-SC-94-01445.jpg (3MB, 3000x2364px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2364px

>>31168261
>>31169271
according to the site you gave, the number for F-16 is 14.25%, and 15.27% for the F-15.

I'd say 16.5% for the Hornet isn't at all bad considering most of them operates from carriers at sea, not to mention continues as the main work horse for the Marines untill the turkey comes online.

>>31168261
One example of the incidents:

Date: 08-NOV-2001

McDonnell Douglas F-18C Hornet
Owner/operator: Finnish Air Force
Registration: HN-413
C/n / msn:
Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 1
Other fatalities: 0
Airplane damage: Substantial
Location: Lappajärvi - Finland
Phase: En route
Nature: Military
Departure airport:
Destination airport:
Narrative:
Collided in midair with another F-18C Hornet (HN-430). The pilot managed to land the aircraft safely on one engine. The aircraft was substantially damaged but was used for a rebuild project several years later, becoming HN-468.

Sources:
Finnish aviation accident database


>hitting another aircraft in flight and losing an engine
>still bringing the pilot back in one piece
>flying coffin

>>31172432
>untill the turkey comes online.
Go back to your soaps, Sprey.

File: ugoback.jpg (31KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 700x394px

>>31172514

>>31169997

I remember being at work when that happened. It was only about 10 miles away ...

File: FA-18midair4.jpg (53KB, 727x575px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 727x575px

>>31172512
Happened in the navy also, crashed during a dogfight, both of them flew home safely.

>flying coffin

File: post-3395-0-02521400-1383855076.jpg (330KB, 708x537px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 708x537px

>>31172630
>flying coffin

File: vmfa-314_1.jpg (249KB, 1024x674px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x674px

Here's one that got a missile from a manpad up the tail during desert storm, flew home on one engine.

>FLYING COFFIN

>>31172432
All of those numbers are actually fantastic when considering how long those airframes have been serving with their respective branches. Also, the rigors of naval CATOBAR aviation more than accounts for that extra 1.2-2.25% incident rate over total airframes.

However, the real measure of the reliability of an aircraft is class A mishaps per 100k flight hours, or another average-cycle/hour-per-mishap/breakage metric.

F-15 averages over airframe lifetime per 100k flight hours, 1972-2013:
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
>Class A mishap: 2.36
>Class B mishap: 6.86
>Average Pilot Fatal rate: 0.70
>Average annual flight hours: 147,218

F-16, lifetime averages:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
>Class A rate: 3.56
>Class B rate: 2.36
>Pilot fatal rate: 0.83
>Average annual flight hours: 258,589


F-18, normal flight rates (source compares normal VS reduced flight time periods to determine effect on mishap rates - interesting reading. no collated USN source on mishaps like the above USAF sources).
http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/statistics/ops_research/PDF/13-004.pdf
>Class A rate: 3.10
>Class B rate: 1.65
We can see here that the mishap rate p-values are right within the same range as F-16s and F-15s.

>>31172432
>>31172751
And now for some more USAF aircraft numbers, for shits and giggles.

A-10, average lifetime rates per 100k flight hours as above with the other USAF numbers:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150116-014.pdf
>Class A rate: 2.00
>Class B rate: 3.32
>Pilot fatal rate: 0.97 (flying low means less time to attempt recovery and then eject...)
>Average annual hours: 121,980

F-22:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150116-039.pdf
>Class A: 5.72 (the first decade of service is usually very high moving to very low over time for most fighters - see the F-15 and F-16 numbers above to confirm this)
>Class B: 11.96
>Pilot fatal rate: 0.52 (breddy damn gud...)
>Average annual hours: 16,021 (again, low because includes early service. Also, less than 200 of them)

B-2:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-042.pdf
>Class A: 0.95 (holy shit that's low)
>Class B: 8.57 (aaaaaaand there's the wammy)
>Pilot fatal rate: 0 (nice)
>Average annual flight hours: 4,376 (really trying to keep the fleet low-hours and keep them around as long as possible, I guess. Also, only 20 of them)

B-1B:
>Class A: 4.01 (WHAT THE FUCK?!)
>Class B: 18.91 (JESUS CHRIST)
>Pilot fatal rate: 0.86
>Average annual flight hours: 21,815

B-52:
>Class A: 1.29
>Class B: 2.54
>average pilot fatal rate: 1.29 (there's the wammy)
>Average annual flight hours: 128,360

>>31172432
>>31172751
>>31172759
So. If you look through the graphs in those USAF reports, you'll find a few interesting things:
>Class A mishap rate (big fuckin' problems, costing more than 1 million dollars before 2010 or 2 million after) drops the longer an aircraft is in service
>Class B mishap (cheaper shit - parts breaking, small ground incidents, etc.) rate rises over the course of an aircraft being in service (I'm guess this is driven by older parts failing unpredictably over time, servicing gear wearing out or giving false green lights, that kind of shit)
>flight altitude matters when it comes to how often a pilot dies in the course of a mishap: the higher your aircraft's service ceiling/SOP cruise altitude, the better the chance you live if the shit hits the fan (unless you're in a B-52)

>>31168783

ROTFL, please stop - I am laughing so much, it is fucking killing me...

t: Somebody who actually knows this sort of shit from a country that had Mig 21 before replacing them with F/A-18 C/D.

File: gibson.pepe.png (2MB, 984x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 984x1312px

>>31168628

Underrated post.

>>31168783
>Mig 21s are literally better than the Fag 18's that america use
I know you're just tossing out bait here but there are probably plenty of fighter mafia acolytes and delusional slavaboos that actually believe this.

>>31168261
>WHY THE FUCK IS THIS PLANE STILL BEING OPERATED!? WTF! SERIOUSLY!
go back to where ever you came from

>>31168279
>>31168299
>>31168318
[citation required]

Take your tinfoil bullshit to /x/ where it belongs

File: 1471200850699.jpg (74KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 680x680px

>>31168687
>>>/pol/

>>31168713
But that's what we call Armenians...

>>31168783
Think you'll really enjoy this friend :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu0bA-PhW9I

File: proofs.png (85KB, 273x252px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 273x252px

>>31168783
>"Mig 21s are literally better than the Fag 18's"
The eternal vatnik shits up another thread.

>>31172759
Hmmm, F-35 hit 50,000 fleet hours in February, which puts A at 2.00 (1 incident), unknown B, Fatal rate of 0.00, and with first flight close enough to 9 years prior, and ~5,555 hours a year, though that'll change as production and entry to service picks up.

>>31172759
>>31173133
Shit, just realized I forgot the B-1B and B-52 sources. Derp.

B-1:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151120-013.pdf

B-52:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151120-015.pdf

>>31173133
>Hmmm, F-35 hit 50,000 fleet hours in February, which puts A at 2.00 (1 incident), unknown B, Fatal rate of 0.00, and with first flight close enough to 9 years prior, and ~5,555 hours a year, though that'll change as production and entry to service picks up.
Nice get. Comparing this to:
>F-15 at 50,000 flight hours - 7 total Class As, rate of 14
>F-16 at 50,000 - 14 total Class As, rate of 28
>F-22 at 50,000 - 4 Class As, rate of 8
>A-10 at 50,000 - 7 Class As, rate of 14

The F-35 dev program, testing protocols and LRIP plan starts looking really, really good.

>>31168299
Avi guy here. Bullshit. The only codes we send are for GPS and IFF.
>vatniks BTFO.

>>31172512
You didn't mention that HN-468 was destroyed later due to a hydraulic actuator failure. Two guys fucked up their spine while ejecting in a steep dive.

File: 14b3a-000-171-045_072.jpg (196KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1600x1280px

>>31173196
>Sprey, Boyd, Riccioni, Hillaker, Kopp, and all other unreasonable Anti-F-35 fags BTFO for all time

Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

>>31168347
>We did.
The civilian version should be known to you as Learjet. It was designed back late 40s-50s but no we cant build them because of fucking commies.

>>31173196
God damn. I'm never buying anyone else telling me about how the F-35s are falling out of the sky and it was a terribly run program. That shit is halfway to miraculous.

>>31173316
The one Class A was also a ground fire on the runway due to an engine defect.

>>31173196
That's because they are only pulling limited Gs with it and flying carefully
t. Sprey

But seriously, computer aided design is a hell of a thing and the test pilots being very skilled helps too.

>>31172751
Jesus christ, you're fucking idiot. No shit A-10 deathrates are higher. CAS missions comprised the majority of USAF combat operations over the last 20 years. Should US get into war with Russia or China you'll see F-15 and F-16 getting shot down by the dozens on daily basis too.

File: nicolas-cage.jpg (520KB, 970x694px)

520KB, 970x694px

>>31173367
You seem. Mad.

>>31173367
>No shit A-10 deathrates are higher. CAS missions comprised the majority of USAF combat operations over the last 20 years
You do realize that the F-15E, F-16 and B-1 ALL flew more combat hours in a CAS capacity than the A-10, right? Right?

The simple fact of the matter is that flying and fighting at higher altitudes exposes you to fewer ground-based threats, and in the event of mechanical failure or enemy action, gives you far more time to work the problem, attempt to stabilize the aircraft and then eject if necessary compared to lower altitude issues (say, an A-10 on an attack run at 2,000 ft AGL VS an F-15E at 35,000ft+ AGL).

Don't be mad. It's just basic physics.

>>31173367
Except the F-16 flies almost as much if not more CAS than the A-10, and does it better to boot. And in a real war against Russia or China the A-10 is dead meat.

>>31173367
>No shit A-10 deathrates are higher. CAS missions comprised the majority of USAF combat operations over the last 20 years. Should US get into war with Russia or China you'll see F-15 and F-16 getting shot down by the dozens on daily basis too.

The A-10 got shot down at disproportionately high rates (24% of all losses were A-10s) in Desert Storm, including that one day they tried to attack the Republican Guard and had two total losses, 14 grounded for damage, and maybe 3-4 that were still able to fly. And that's with a heavily weakened, Battalion-asset air defense system.

>>31173367
You don't seem to understand what "rate" means. I suggest you re-enter elementary school so you can learn about fractions.

>>31173367
>No shit A-10 deathrates are higher
Actually, there have been far fewer A-10s destroyed compared to F-15s or F-16s over their service life (there being far fewer of them overall), which means that death rate is actually even worse than it looks:

>A-10 chance of death per aircraft loss: 51 pilot deaths over 104 total aircraft losses, or a 49% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss
>F-15: 43 pilot deaths (including WSOs in E models/backseaters in B and D models, so that's even worse for the A-10) over 123 aircraft losses, or 35% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss
>F-16: 84 total pilot deaths over 334 total aircraft losses, or a 25% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss

>A-10: 49% chance of death
>F-15: 35% chance of death
>F-16: 25% chance of death

So, yeah. Sucks to be an A-10 pilot if you're worried about surviving a Class A mishap.

>>31173496
but muh armored tub
muh survivability

>>31173496
>>F-15: 35% chance of death
>>F-16: 25% chance of death
I guess that makes sense, considering how many more 2-seater F-15s are in service compared to 2-seater F-16s.

>>A-10: 49% chance of death
This is just ridiculous and a little sad. WTF?

>>31173634
>This is just ridiculous and a little sad. WTF?
Keep in mind it's death per aircraft lost, though still pretty bad.

>>31173634

the F-15E is also an extremely safe aircraft due to the inherent safety of the two-person cockpit, many of the "teething issue" bugs worked out with the A-D models, and more advanced technology used to build it. I don't know of a death in the aircraft that didn't have pilot/crew error or enemy fire as its root cause.

>>31173367
>>31173496
Let's take this a step further and look at pilot deaths per 100k flight hours:

>F-15: 43 total Pilot/WSO/Backseater deaths to 6,183,171 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.7 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours over aircraft service lifetime.
>F-16: 84 total Pilot/Backseater deaths to 10,084,953 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.83 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours.
>A-10: 51 total Pilot deaths to 5,161,601 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.997 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours

>F-15: 0.7 pilot deaths per 100k FH
>F-16: 0.83 pilot deaths per 100k FH
>A-10: 0.997 pilot deaths per 100k FH

Tell me again about how rugged and safe it is to fly an A-10 in combat, or even to survive a serious in-flight mishap?

Proud Spaniard
You faggots don't know how to fly
>The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. In West Germany it came to be nicknamed Witwenmacher ("The Widowmaker"). Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the German Air Force lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,[66] and Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235).[67] The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Safety_record

>>31172514
Enjoy your death spiral, lockmart shill.

>>31173196
>8 years late
>no accidents

I could drive a Yugo across the USA going only 20 miles per hour, that doesn't mean it suddenly is a reliable car. Not to mention comparing a plane that hasn't left IOC to planes that are in combat service is full retard.

>>31173952
Enjoy being wrong about literally every fighter program since the 60s, Sprey.

>>31173975
>Not to mention comparing a plane that hasn't left IOC to planes that are in combat service is full retard
Except he's comparing them to how many accidents they each had at 50,000 flight hours, you moron.

>>31173740
>flying more dangerous missions has a higher result of injury!

Good job retard.

>>31174018

>flying needlessly dangerous missions has a higher rate of injury for the same effects on target

>>31174018
It's a more dangerous execution of the exact same mission, retard. Hence the push to retire the thing

>>31173432
Your entire argument is countered by the fact that helicopters fly lower than all of those planes and have flown more combat hours. So no flying higher is not necessarily safer.

Don't be mad. It's just basic math.

>>31173975
>Not to mention comparing a plane that hasn't left IOC to planes that are in combat service is full retard.
He compared every single one of those aircraft at exactly the same flight hours rating: 50,000 total flight hours. Go fuck yourself.

>>31174049

are you seriously equating rotary and fixed wing accident rates?

>>31174018
For the second time this thread,

>>31173432
>You do realize that the F-15E, F-16 and B-1 ALL flew more combat hours in a CAS capacity than the A-10, right? Right?
>The simple fact of the matter is that flying and fighting at higher altitudes exposes you to fewer ground-based threats, and in the event of mechanical failure or enemy action, gives you far more time to work the problem, attempt to stabilize the aircraft and then eject if necessary compared to lower altitude issues (say, an A-10 on an attack run at 2,000 ft AGL VS an F-15E at 35,000ft+ AGL).
>Don't be mad. It's just basic physics.

>>31168279
>>31168299
>>31168783
>People believe this shit

File: shit eating anime.png (1MB, 1520x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1520x1080px

>>31173444
>more than 4x the amount of F-16s in service compared to A-10s
>XD THEY FLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MISSIONS

Were you born retarded, or is it just the result of an accident?

>>31173196
Nigga, the airplanes are in no way comparable.

>>31174014
>>31174061
How is an A-10's flight hours comparable to the F-35's?

>>31174049
>Your entire argument is countered by the fact that helicopters fly lower than all of those planes and have flown more combat hours. So no flying higher is not necessarily safer.
Anon. Jesus. Comparing rotary wing and fixed wing mishap rates? Are you really this new?

>Nigga, the airplanes are in no way comparable.
How so?
>I compared them all at 50,000 flight hours into their service lives
>They are all fighters and/or tactical attack aircraft
>They are all single/two seat combat tactical aircraft
>None of them were involved in combat for their first 50,000 flight hours
The only significant differences are that some of them are twin engine, the rest single engine (not an advantage for the F-35 statistically, btw). And the important fact that none of them except the F-35 had an extensive testing and LRIP process which overlapped. By 20,000 hours, all the rest were in FRP. The F-35 is well over 65,000 hours now and still in LRIP for another two years.

>>31174115
>How is an A-10's flight hours comparable to the F-35's?
See above. By 50,000 hours, the A-10 had yet to see combat, was very early in service, and was brand new to the USAF.

What makes you think an A-10's flight hours are somehow fundamentally different?

>>31174175
>>Nigga, the airplanes are in no way comparable.
>How so?
>>I compared them all at 50,000 flight hours into their service lives
>>They are all fighters and/or tactical attack aircraft
>>They are all single/two seat combat tactical aircraft
>>None of them were involved in combat for their first 50,000 flight hours
>The only significant differences are that some of them are twin engine, the rest single engine (not an advantage for the F-35 statistically, btw). And the important fact that none of them except the F-35 had an extensive testing and LRIP process which overlapped. By 20,000 hours, all the rest were in FRP. The F-35 is well over 65,000 hours now and still in LRIP for another two years.
meant for >>31174098

>>31174081

they've been retiring F-16s left and right. Shaw, Hill, Kunsan or Osan (I forget which) and Aviano are the only AD bases. so the fact that in 2015 they provided roughly 4x the amount of CAS in the anti-ISIS fight is impressive. or the F-15E, with a smaller (less than 1/3 the A-10s) but generally newer fleet that's all in service still is right behind the A-10.

so no, the A-10 CAS isn't needed as something unique that no other existing airframe can provide.

A little more A-10 stomping with numbers in the other thread...

>>31173882
>>31174037
>>31174167
>>31174599

File: 14098-F18-GNH.jpg (281KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1000x667px

>>31174048
>>31174194

What I wonder about is how the cost of doing CAS compare for the F-15/16/18 vs the A-10.

Airframes isn't unlimited either, and those fighters are being run pretty hard as it is on air to air training, and strike missions etc.

And how effective the job is done.
The A-10's capability to doing like 8-10 gun strafes pr plane vs the others 3-4 has to count for something in those dire situations when troops are in real shit..?

>>31174984
Most CAS is performed with guided munitions from high up, not gun runs. 20mm and 30mm also aren't all that different when you're hitting soft targets. Additionally, the A-10's limited flight capabilities force different and more dangerous flight profiles than are usually used today.
The A-10 is also an older, out of production airframe for which basic replacement parts are becoming an issue for.

>>31175015

in addition, the A-10 can only generate coordinates for itself via the targeting pod, which inherently limit its usefulness in inclement weather. the B-1, F-15E, F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F, and F-16 have the added flexibility of attack radars which can be used to map targets through the weather. while nobody likes doing radar CAS if it can be avoided, it remains an option and gives the flexibility of dropping precision munitions with low TLE in adverse conditions without needing something like PSS-SOF and the attached specialty JTACs to generate coordinates.

>>31172787
Finland?

File: IMG_20130502_145342.jpg (979KB, 2592x1936px)

979KB, 2592x1936px

>>31175916
Not that guy, but yeah.

Also it was funny when soviets sold us K-13s and we found that they were entirely interchangeable with the sidewinder they were copied from.

File: IMG_20130502_145357.jpg (185KB, 1360x1024px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1360x1024px

>>31177875
Of course, we never fired one in anger, so we still don't know if they would've performed to the same standard...