>fundamentally a 50's aircraft >still going strong how does she do it?
>>65384744It's all about how versatile the platform is.>be fast enough>be able to carry enough>be able to fly far enough>have enough internal space for upgradesYou can gut a Vietnam era F-4 Phantom and fill it with enough tech / modern weapons to be a solid 4th gen aircraft, one that can sling the latest AIM-120's, cruise missiles and long distance glide bombs. You can not really do that with say a MiG-21, that is why by the 70's/80's the MiG-21 only existed to pad the enemies kill stats, couldn't even turn it into a half decent ground attack aircraft. It's just as fast but there is just not enough fuel, carry capacity or room on board to make it worth modernizing.
Because the proposal for a Super A-4 was rejected or never seriously considered, which is something the US could've used much more efficiently as a bomb truck than a twin engine fighter whose performance was crippled by the need to operate as a ground attack aircraft. But its ok guys, MD and later Boeing made a fucking killing selling the naval department the hornet and later the Rhino, and I'm sure they both got a chance to prove their worth as a fighter, right guys?
>>65384744>how does she do it?Third world countries are broke as fuck and can't even afford an F-16A MLU.
>>65384768>Super A-4You mean the A-7?
>>65384763>you can not really do that with say a MiG-21
>>65384744checked, the E/F Stupid Hornet has absolutely nothing to do with the original Northrop F-5 / P-530 / YF-17 / F-18 lightweight fighter sequence. Completely different airplane
>A complete piece of shit>Keeps a jobber MIC company going
>>65384763The F-14 Super Tomcat would have been better in every way than the Super Hornet
>>65384744I'd like a super mig dart interceptor that can just chuck shit and leave. Does anything fulfill that role?
>>65384768Singaporean Skyhawks with F404s?
>>65384744>fundamentally not broken>still doesn't need fixingThat's how.
>>65385065>f14 super tomcat28 hours of maintenance per 1 hour of flight time instead of 14:1
>>65384744always preferred the F/A-18 to F-14
>>65385065nice retarded boomer opinion there, dude
>>65384801what part of that is a Mig-21?
The F-18 is a good multi-role aircraft.
>>65388556It's whappens when you leave a F-16 and a MiG-21 alone in the same hangar with enough booze after an airshow.
>>65389138>mig-21 Wrong. That would be mig-29. Mig-21-chan is ugly
