Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="longtime, post: 235129, member: 16513"]
Kav -- I just saw your post.  You are very, very mistaken about your evaluation of the Hornet.  Understandable, due to your allegiance.  But don't let that fool anyone.  Your facts are very far off the mark.  "Master of none?"  Um, ok.  If "none" doesn't count the two missions it's intended for -- close range fighting and close air support.  Your pilots won't tell you this, for obvious reasons, but I can [i]guarantee[/i] you not only that 8 out of 10 of them wish they were in Hornets, but also that 10 out of 10 of them would choose to be in a Hornet if the **** ever really hit the fan in a furball.  It is not only better at close air support, but, more importantly (from the pilots standpoint when he gets jumped), ACM (air combat maneuvers).  By FAR.  Heck, if the difference weren't so obvious, your pilots wouldn't go to such pains to convince you otherwise.  (You never see Hornet drivers bagging on other airplanes -- until provoked).  :p

An F-4 would stand a better chance against a Hornet than a Harrier would.  Heck, even a skilled A-4 driver might.  A Harrier would have one -- and only one-- chance for survival against a Hornet:  hope it could use the VTOL ability to drop down quickly so you and your buddies could drape a tarp over it before it got shot.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Which ocean is California closest to?