Hacker News Reader

Comment by darksaints | Hacker News Reader

By the time of the second gulf war, the F-14D cost 20% more per unit than the F-18E, and some 80-100% more to maintain. I'm not sure how you're concluding that the taxpayers were ripped off by that.

Also, didn't we have airbases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Why were we relying on carrier aircraft for bombing Bagdad when we could have been using F-15s and F-16s?

View on HN

>Also, didn't we have airbases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Yes, I believe Al Jaber Kuwait had already constructed one of the largest post-Vietnam expeditionary airfields* with multiple US squadrons (including F/A-18s) present before the war officially began.

* "Expeditionary Airfields (EAFs) are portable airfields that can be constructed, used, broken down after the completion of a mission and moved to another site for re-use."[1]

[1] http://www.cassholdings.com/AM2.htm

When you evaluate cost effectiveness you have to look beyond unit cost to what capabilities and effects the taxpayers actually get for their money. The F/A-18E/F is pretty good at short range strike missions, but it has less range and requires more tanker support for longer range missions. It's also generally inferior for the fleet air defense mission, especially compared to a notional "Super Tomcat 21" equipped with a modern AESA radar. Fortunately the US Navy hasn't had to actually defend a fleet from air attack since the Vietnam War, so the Super Hornet deficiencies haven't really bitten them (yet).

90% of the roles that we used carrier aircraft for 40 years ago are now fulfilled by a combination of Drones, Cruise Missiles, SAMs, and CIW Systems. I'm not even convinced we really need the Super Hornets anymore, it seems like we're holding on to them for the 1 in a million "just in case" scenarios.

If the squadron really was doing the work of 4-5 F-18 squadrons, costing 20% more to build and 100% more to maintain would make them much more cost effective plane.

> By the time of the second gulf war, the F-14D cost 20% more per unit than the F-18E, and some 80-100% more to maintain. I'm not sure how you're concluding that the taxpayers were ripped off by that.

He/she isn't concluding that, they are repeating what they were told at the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com