• Aircraft

  • What capabilities do Aircraft lose from being Navalized?

The F-18 is an aircraft that is capable of being operated from Carriers. But in addition to that, the F-18 have seen considerable export success to various Air Forces that never had the slightest interest in operating the planes from Carriers. Nor does it seem particularly obvious in what ways the Carrier borne jets are inferior to their land based counterparts. It isn't just the F-18; every navy jet have had at least some foreign operators, and those foreign operators generally didn't operate the planes from carriers.

Given the high R&D costs of aircraft, what would be the downsides of having a SecDef that just says "Hey Airforce, instead of developing two planes, let's just develop one CATOBAR capable plane for the navy and operate that from normal runways too"?

Since the past is easier to discuss than the future, what did the F-16 gain over the F-18, and what did the F-35A gain over the C?

9 months later

Decrease the sortie rate due to complexity of weapons Trade-offs between naval effectiveness and safety of naval operations involve higher acceptance of risk in wartime and less toleration of risk in peacetime. Roblox Guides get-mobdrovip.com

Look at the F-14/F-111, the Navy needs an aircraft which can take the heavy pounding on carrier landings. That's why they went with the Tomcat over the Vark.

For AF planes, you don't need the heavier gear, and extra weight needs to get cut for better fuel consumption or carry more fuel/weapons.

a month later

thanks for the awesome information.

https://breakfasthoursofficial.com/mcdonalds-breakfast-hours

https://breakfasthoursofficial.com/taco-bell-lunch

https://breakfasthoursofficial.com/zaxbys-hours