Right. Because a 20mm shell doesn’t kill a human quite as dead as a 30mm shell.

Right up until you start hanging missiles, bombs and tanks on it.

Stick to Tom Clancy novels. They’re better researched.

You sir, nailed it.

Then why post the article at all?

With much more credible information than the stuff already out there.

No, but you’re not doing your homework.

F/A-18E/F has the exact same seat limitation.

F/A-18E/F has the exact same seat limitation.

You sir, nailed it. I wish I could like your comment more than once.

F/A-18E/F has the exact same limitations.

But yeah, blame Martin-Baker Boeing Lockheed.

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 165533 AND UP AIRCRAFT

No, it’s not.

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 165533 AND UP AIRCRAFT

Pod 6 is jerks

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why his name is Ruben Blades.

That thought’s crossed my mind a couple of times too. Seems that the AF has a better track record for air superiority aircraft (F-86, F-15, F-22) whereas the Navy has the edge on multi-role aircraft (F-4, F/A-18).

Although the ultimate irony being, with both the A-7 and F-4, the Navy started out with a good aircraft,…

Yeah, everyone I know who has any involvement in the F-35 wants to make it work because, as you said, there is no plan B. (Although ironically, F-35 already is - in a way - plan B, being born out of separate and canceled programs from the late 80s/early 90s to replace the F-16, Harrier and A-6).

In the early 1970s…

True. For a man who claims to be a champion of Defense procurement reform, Sen. John McCain never met a Navy program he didn’t like.

After 2009, when the F-22 production was ended, there was no point in the AF going back to Congress with the 381-minimum requirement. The damage had been done. USAF leadership had lost the battles for CSAR-X, KC-X, T-X, NGB and now F-22 so the focus became preserving F-35 since that was the only tactical aircraft…