US Naval Strike Fighters

It seems that several F-18 were lost in Japan. US Army said because of accidents.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/03/navy-fatal-f-18-crash-was-part-of-top-gun-training-course/

Each statement now coming from Dod I automatically distrust. Maybe they are right, and it could indeed an accident. Or ?
F-18 downed by North Korea air defense, or du to North Korean fighters ? Nothing is impossible.
Could someone among you confirm this ?

nemrod wrote:

It seems that several F-18 were lost in Japan. US Army said because of accidents.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/03/navy-fatal-f-18-crash-was-part-of-top-gun-training-course/

Each statement now coming from Dod I automatically distrust. Maybe they are right, and it could indeed an accident. Or ?
F-18 downed by North Korea air defense, or du to North Korean fighters ? Nothing is impossible.
Could someone among you confirm this ?

No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.
About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want, it's probably just a normal accident.

Flyingdutchman wrote:....About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind.... it's probably just a normal accident.

Indeed, it is a possibilty, as I have no clues to assert the contrary.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.

Really ?
I don't think that if a F-18 could win easily against a skill pilot inside a Mig 21bis, or a Mig 23 ML. As North Korea has a strong air defense -S-300, S-200 -, they could not use US armada -it means no awacs, no jammer, no elint, fights will be in most of the case in dogfights, in this area, the north koreans are not the last- to jam electronics system inside either Mig 21, or Mig 23, and Mig 29.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
....this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want...

There were many -suspect-accidents -in reality, they were simply downed- in history that americans hide in order to avoid conflict. I think about SR 71 and their several "accidents", downed undoubtly by soviet air defense. North Korea is not Iraq, and even less Serbia. North Korea is not alone, there are China behind, secondly they have not only a strong air defense, but a very skills pilots that in the past conflicts demonstrated their high competencies with north vietnameses, or with Syria in october 73 war. North korean pilots downed several of the best US air fighters. Contrary to what US shows and  you say, I think America is really reluctant to wage a war against North Korea, they know exactly what this war could give in result. America cannot afford to dare another war presently, and during the following years in this decade, and in next decades.

In case of war, the looser won't be North Korea in this case, US are well aware.

nemrod wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:....About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind.... it's probably just a normal accident.

Indeed, it is a possibilty, as I have no clues to assert the contrary.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.

Really ?
I don't think that if a F-18 could win easily against a skill pilot inside a Mig 21bis, or a Mig 23 ML. As North Korea has a strong air defense -S-300, S-200 -, they could not use US armada -it means no awacs, no jammer, no elint, fights will be in most of the case in dogfights, in this area, the north koreans are not the last- to jam electronics system inside either Mig 21, or Mig 23, and Mig 29.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
....this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want...

There were many -suspect-accidents -in reality, they were simply downed- in history that americans hide in order to avoid conflict. I think about SR 71 and their several "accidents", downed undoubtly by soviet air defense. North Korea is not Iraq, and even less Serbia. North Korea is not alone, there are China behind, secondly they have not only a strong air defense, but a very skills pilots that in the past conflicts demonstrated their high competencies with north vietnameses, or with Syria in october 73 war. North korean pilots downed several of the best US air fighters. Contrary to what US shows and  you say, I think America is really reluctant to wage a war against North Korea, they know exactly what this war could give in result. America cannot afford to dare another war presently, and during the following years in this decade, and in next decades.

In case of war, the looser won't be North Korea in this case, US are well aware.

If the USA wage war on North Korea and North Korea wont use nuclear weapons i would say hmmmm.... One week....one week and north korea is destroyed.

People did research and north korea is having enough food to feed there army for 4 days then its over.

I Think a Super Hornet would destroy a mig-21 or mig-23 maybe not easily but they would succeed.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

nemrod wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:....About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind.... it's probably just a normal accident.

Indeed, it is a possibilty, as I have no clues to assert the contrary.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.

Really ?
I don't think that if a F-18 could win easily against a skill pilot inside a Mig 21bis, or a Mig 23 ML. As North Korea has a strong air defense -S-300, S-200 -, they could not use US armada -it means no awacs, no jammer, no elint, fights will be in most of the case in dogfights, in this area, the north koreans are not the last- to jam electronics system inside either Mig 21, or Mig 23, and Mig 29.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
....this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want...

There were many -suspect-accidents -in reality, they were simply downed- in history that americans hide in order to avoid conflict. I think about SR 71 and their several "accidents", downed undoubtly by soviet air defense. North Korea is not Iraq, and even less Serbia. North Korea is not alone, there are China behind, secondly they have not only a strong air defense, but a very skills pilots that in the past conflicts demonstrated their high competencies with north vietnameses, or with Syria in october 73 war. North korean pilots downed several of the best US air fighters. Contrary to what US shows and  you say, I think America is really reluctant to wage a war against North Korea, they know exactly what this war could give in result. America cannot afford to dare another war presently, and during the following years in this decade, and in next decades.

In case of war, the looser won't be North Korea in this case, US are well aware.

If the USA wage war on North Korea and North Korea wont use nuclear weapons i would say hmmmm.... One week....one week and north korea is destroyed.

People did research and north korea is having enough food to feed there army for 4 days then its over.

I Think a Super Hornet would destroy a mig-21 or mig-23 maybe not easily but they would succeed.

I don't think it would be that simple, if NK used it's nuclear weapons than the U.S. would be tempted to use their own, and if they did than Chinese and Russian early warning radars as well as spy satellites would catch wind of the icbm launch flying in their direction which would likely be considered an attack on them which would then meet the icbm launch with a swift response with thermonuclear weapons, then Britain and France would be tempted to come to the aid of their ally with nukes which would quickly escalate in to all out thermonuclear war. Whether a war with NK is nuclear or conventional than it would be devastating on both sides, as General MacArthur once said "You can't win a land war in Asia!"

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

nemrod wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:....About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind.... it's probably just a normal accident.

Indeed, it is a possibilty, as I have no clues to assert the contrary.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.

Really ?
I don't think that if a F-18 could win easily against a skill pilot inside a Mig 21bis, or a Mig 23 ML. As North Korea has a strong air defense -S-300, S-200 -, they could not use US armada -it means no awacs, no jammer, no elint, fights will be in most of the case in dogfights, in this area, the north koreans are not the last- to jam electronics system inside either Mig 21, or Mig 23, and Mig 29.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
....this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want...

There were many -suspect-accidents -in reality, they were simply downed- in history that americans hide in order to avoid conflict. I think about SR 71 and their several "accidents", downed undoubtly by soviet air defense. North Korea is not Iraq, and even less Serbia. North Korea is not alone, there are China behind, secondly they have not only a strong air defense, but a very skills pilots that in the past conflicts demonstrated their high competencies with north vietnameses, or with Syria in october 73 war. North korean pilots downed several of the best US air fighters. Contrary to what US shows and  you say, I think America is really reluctant to wage a war against North Korea, they know exactly what this war could give in result. America cannot afford to dare another war presently, and during the following years in this decade, and in next decades.

In case of war, the looser won't be North Korea in this case, US are well aware.

If the USA wage war on North Korea and North Korea wont use nuclear weapons i would say hmmmm.... One week....one week and north korea is destroyed.

People did research and north korea is having enough food to feed there army for 4 days then its over.

I Think a Super Hornet would destroy a mig-21 or mig-23 maybe not easily but they would succeed.

I don't think it would be that simple, if NK used it's nuclear weapons than the U.S. would be tempted to use their own, and if they did than Chinese and Russian early warning radars as well as spy satellites would catch wind of the icbm launch flying in their direction which would likely be considered an attack on them which would then meet the icbm launch with a swift response with thermonuclear weapons, then Britain and France would be tempted to come to the aid of their ally with nukes which would quickly escalate in to all out thermonuclear war. Whether a war with NK is nuclear or conventional than it would be devastating on both sides, as General MacArthur once said "You can't win a land war in Asia!"

China wont do anything when a war breaks out in north Korea and i think if the US launches nuclear weapons they would be smart enough to warn China and say it is launched in the direction of north Korea.
China said itself that they dont feel themselfs comfortable with a nuclear armed north Korea.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

nemrod wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:....About there air defences i dont know much but i really dont think the north koreans are behind.... it's probably just a normal accident.

Indeed, it is a possibilty, as I have no clues to assert the contrary.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
No probably not the north koreans the only fighter they have that could pose a threat to a f 18 is there mig-29k's and they are having the task to protect the capital.

Really ?
I don't think that if a F-18 could win easily against a skill pilot inside a Mig 21bis, or a Mig 23 ML. As North Korea has a strong air defense -S-300, S-200 -, they could not use US armada -it means no awacs, no jammer, no elint, fights will be in most of the case in dogfights, in this area, the north koreans are not the last- to jam electronics system inside either Mig 21, or Mig 23, and Mig 29.

Flyingdutchman wrote:
....this i mean why would the US dont say it if it were the north koreans?
It would be a good reason for the US to take out North Korea what they probably want...

There were many -suspect-accidents -in reality, they were simply downed- in history that americans hide in order to avoid conflict. I think about SR 71 and their several "accidents", downed undoubtly by soviet air defense. North Korea is not Iraq, and even less Serbia. North Korea is not alone, there are China behind, secondly they have not only a strong air defense, but a very skills pilots that in the past conflicts demonstrated their high competencies with north vietnameses, or with Syria in october 73 war. North korean pilots downed several of the best US air fighters. Contrary to what US shows and  you say, I think America is really reluctant to wage a war against North Korea, they know exactly what this war could give in result. America cannot afford to dare another war presently, and during the following years in this decade, and in next decades.

In case of war, the looser won't be North Korea in this case, US are well aware.

If the USA wage war on North Korea and North Korea wont use nuclear weapons i would say hmmmm.... One week....one week and north korea is destroyed.

People did research and north korea is having enough food to feed there army for 4 days then its over.

I Think a Super Hornet would destroy a mig-21 or mig-23 maybe not easily but they would succeed.

I don't think it would be that simple, if NK used it's nuclear weapons than the U.S. would be tempted to use their own, and if they did than Chinese and Russian early warning radars as well as spy satellites would catch wind of the icbm launch flying in their direction which would likely be considered an attack on them which would then meet the icbm launch with a swift response with thermonuclear weapons, then Britain and France would be tempted to come to the aid of their ally with nukes which would quickly escalate in to all out thermonuclear war. Whether a war with NK is nuclear or conventional than it would be devastating on both sides, as General MacArthur once said "You can't win a land war in Asia!"

China wont do anything when a war breaks out in north Korea and i think if the US launches nuclear weapons they would be smart enough to warn China and say it is launched in the direction of north Korea.
China said itself that they dont feel themselfs comfortable with a nuclear armed north Korea.

1.) This comment confuses me. China wouldn't do anything if war broke out in in North Korea? Than how do you explain China holding drills/exercises with 100,000 PLA soldiers near the North Korean border as preparation for future conflicts in the Korean Peninsula?

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140115000029&cid=1101

2.) Who in their right mind would willingly allow nuclear weapons to be detonated near it's borders in a conflict? Not even friendly nations would be so keen let alone the strained relations between U.S. and China, even if the U.S. were honest and wouldn't use that as an excuse to launch nukes in to Chinese territory, the Korean peninsula is a small piece of territory, radioactive fallout could easily travel in to China and would extremely pollute the already polluted Chinese skies, and heavily poison Chinese territorial waters and fisheries.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
2.) Who in their right mind would willingly allow nuclear weapons to be detonated near it's borders in a conflict?...

If a thing is sure, no nuclear war in Asia will be occured. This is certain. North Korea, as China, as US have all thermonuclear weapon. I said thermonuclear weapons. Indeed, North Korea has not only nuclear devices.

It is worth to repeat again that, there won't be a conventional war in Asia, simply because US cannot afford it. I did not say that it won't be occured some skirmishes, as few Mig-21 downed, against few F-15, or F-18. But that's all.

Back to our initial subject, I've meant too, that the F-18 could downed, I only said that it "could" be, as DOD used to lie. It is possible that these F-18 were indeed subject to accidents this why I asked if someone among you have more clues, and if you could confirm us.

nemrod, one aircraft crashed in the U.S. state of Nevada on a training mission as reported by the U.S. Navy spokesman in the article.

The Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC), located in the high desert of northern Nevada approximately 65 miles east of Reno, NV, is a set of well defined geographic areas encompassing a land area and multiple air spaces. It is used primarily for training operations, with some capability to support research and development, and test and evaluation of military hardware, personnel, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic combat.

AirCargo wrote:nemrod, one aircraft crashed in the U.S. state of Nevada on a training mission as reported by the U.S. Navy spokesman in the article.

The Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC), located in the high desert of northern Nevada approximately 65 miles east of Reno, NV, is a set of well defined geographic areas encompassing a land area and multiple air spaces. It is used primarily for training operations, with some capability to support research and development, and test and evaluation of military hardware, personnel, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic combat.

Thx AirCargo for your remarq.

http://presstv.com/detail/2014/09/12/378505/2-us-warplanes-crash-in-pacific-ocean/

Two US warplanes have crashed into the Pacific Ocean while operating at the sea, according to a statement from the US 7th Fleet.

Two F/A-18 Hornet jets that were operating aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson crashed at 5:40 p.m. local time on Thursday in the western Pacific, the navy said on Friday.

The navy said that one pilot was rescued and is currently receiving medical care aboard the aircraft carrier, and a search is under way for the other airman.

The cause of the crash is under investigation. The jets were from Carrier Air Wing 17 and assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 94 and Strike Fighter Squadron 113. They have not been recovered.

According to the navy, the Carl Vinson is "underway in the US 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region."

They can't even fly safely, so much for the "best pilots in the world"! - That is a common belief here in the US, which isn't a surprise...

Hopefully they find the other pilot safe and well...

Flying planes at sea is a dangerous thing...

I know many western media outlets enjoy rubbing in mishaps for the Russian and Soviet Military, but I really don't think the real military feel that way on either side.

GarryB wrote:Hopefully they find the other pilot safe and well...

Flying planes at sea is a dangerous thing...

I know many western media outlets enjoy rubbing in mishaps for the Russian and Soviet Military, but I really don't think the real military feel that way on either side.

Yeah, me too. 

+

It depends... I know people that have been USAF etc and while they aren't "russophobes", they definitely have a bias against Russia.

This isn't exactly on topic, but the US just announced the dissolution of their largest "aggressor squadron". - Looks like a decent number of F-15's will be sent to the graveyard!

Really does, like it was meant to be in Russian colors!

USA need to cut down there air craft and only Super Hornets I say in another post this forum.

Plus transport planes and attack helicopters.

But B-52 and other bomb planes left important delivering war outside nation and with reserve.

Trippel size down. 2000 st Apache sufficient.

Transport planes is for one big out land war.

From 12000 down to 4000.

Battalion0415 wrote:USA need to cut down there air craft and only Super Hornets I say in another post this forum.

Plus transport planes and attack helicopters.

But B-52 and other bomb planes left important delivering war outside nation and with reserve.

Trippel size down. 2000 st Apache sufficient.

Transport planes is for one big out land war.

From 12000 down to 4000.

well navy and marines buy F-35 versions to replace old Hornets

USA do not need F-35 I saying another post. Only for selling outside country.

F/A-18 is better and cheaper than the horrendously expensive PoS program that is the F-35.
Actually the F/A-18 always struck me as an excellent aircraft.

US Navy Details New Strike Fighter Need

WASHINGTON – It's been only two years since the US Navy quit buying F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters – part of a long-planned transition to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter -- but a confluence of events has led to the new possibility that more attack aircraft could be ordered from Boeing.

When the US Navy submitted its fiscal 2015 request a year ago, it was the first budget since the 1970s that did not include some version of the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. Procurement of F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets ended in 2013, and the last of 138 EA-18G Growler electronic warfare versions was included in the 2014 budget.

Congress, however, added an unplanned-for 15 Growlers in the 2015 budget, responding to a Navy unfunded priority list request to meet a joint tactical need. The move keeps open Boeing's St. Louis production line an extra year, through 2017.

Now, a strike fighter shortfall the Navy thought it could manage by a variety of methods is being further exacerbated, and it seems highly likely that when the new unfunded requirements list is submitted to Congress by mid-March, it will include a request for new Super Hornets.

"We have a shortfall in Super Hornets, we do," Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, told Congress on March 4. "And we're going to have to work our way through here in order to manage it."

The shortfall is not a new situation – it's been developing for years, and was something the Navy's leadership thought it could manage its way through. But in recent weeks, sources said, the emphasis has shifted from using current resources to deal with the problem to including the purchase of new aircraft as part of an overall solution.

Simply put, the situation breaks down like this:

The fleet has about 600 F/A-18C Hornet "legacy" aircraft – pre-Super Hornet strike fighters – in its current inventory, with something over half scheduled to be replaced by 340 new F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. About 300 of the 18Cs are out of service, according to the Navy.
Budget constraints and software development issues have pushed out F-35C procurement to the right – delayed by several years – and the first "35 Charlies" aren't scheduled to reach initial operating capability until 2018. Full rate production of 20 aircraft per year isn't planned until 2020, and it will be another two years before those aircraft enter service.
Increased operating tempos due to combat operations against the Islamic State in northern Iraq and western Syria meant that the Navy did not realize reduced flying hours from the drawdown in Afghanistan.
Thus the legacy Hornets need to keep flying longer. While they were rated up to a lifespan of 6,000 flying hours, the Navy figures it needs a service life extension program (SLEP) to get 150 of those planes out to 8,000 hours.
With fewer F/A-18Cs flying, newer E and F Super Hornets are being used up at higher rates than planned.
Budget reductions in recent years reduced money for depot maintenance, creating something of a backlog that, a year ago, reached 65 F/A-18Cs. Technicians, however, discovered much higher levels of corrosion when those aircraft were opened up, leading to growth in the number of aircraft that needed work, and a longer work period to deal with them. While the Navy has restored the depot funding, the backlog has expanded from 65 to 100 aircraft, and the service is struggling to hire more skilled labor to work on the planes.
The growth in the backlog of 35 aircraft over the past year led Greenert to estimate the need was for "two or three squadrons" of new strike fighters to plug the gap. F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets are organized into 12-plane squadrons, while 18Cs fly in squadrons of 10 aircraft. Two squadrons of new planes works out to 24 aircraft, 36 for three squadrons.

The Navy in 2012 surveyed its strike fighter inventory to assess the problem. "We looked at the inventory challenges," said Rear Adm. Mike Manazer, the Navy's director of air warfare. "SLEP 150 F/A-18Cs and buy 41 Es and Fs."

"As we pushed JSF outside to the right -- this latest budget moved 16 outside the FYDP [six-year Future years Defense Plan] -- I'm not making up those aircraft." Over the past three years, Manazir said, a total of 159 F-35C carrier variant and F-35B Marine jump jets have been moved out of the FYDP.

Assuming the air fleet keeps flying at about 330 hours a year per airplane, he said, "from 2020 to 2035, I need to be buying about 30 to 39 aircraft per year to replace" older, worn-out aircraft. "It's a product of supply and demand."

Another key factor, Manazir noted, is the Super Hornet mid-life refit program expected a decade from now.

"I have to get 563 Super Hornets out to 9,000 hours," he noted. "Ten years from now I'm going to be in the middle of SLEP'ping 563 airplanes. Do I have enough depot capacity? If I can do that successfully, I can manage that risk. Procurement [of new aircraft] reduces that risk."

Some observers look at a Navy effort to keep buying Boeing F/A-18s as an indication the service is soft on support for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Manazir insists there is no truth to that.

"There is no move here to not buy something," he declared. "In order for me to win in 2024 I have to have F-35Cs flying with F-18Es and Fs. I have to. And I have to be able to fill my air wings out.

"I am trying to get rid of the myth that all the Navy wants to do is continue F-18 Es and Fs. If I only have F-18 Es and Fs in 2024 I can't win. [The JSF is] fourth generation – I have to have a number of F-35C squadrons."

"What I try to do is avoid – because it's not true -- the F-18 Boeing versus the Lockheed Martin F-35" story line, he said. "Because for the United States Navy it's not all about getting the F-35, it's about getting the integrated capabilities of the high-end war fight -- which takes the F-18 E F and the F-35C. It takes them both."

The number of aircraft Greenert is talking about, Manazir said, is the right number.

"So two to three squadrons in 2016 -- 36 airplanes -- helps me reduce my risk of extension for that.

"If I reduce my risk through that procurement that he testified to, and I can extend my 18Es and Fs to the plan that I'm going to now, and I'm going to procure F-35Cs to the tune of 20 per year starting in 2020. I've reduced my risk to a manageable level. And that's my entire cohesive plan going forward."

End of Top Gun? Navy Sees Future Not in F-35s, But in Unmanned Aircraft

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150417/1020996417.html#ixzz3XZQpjy3v

Navy Tests New Software to Make it Easier to Land Jets on Carriers

The United States Navy on Tuesday successfully field-tested its new software system for F-18 fighter jets, designed to make it easier for the aircraft to land on carriers at sea.

A pilot landed an F-18 equipped with the aptly named “Magic Carpet” software program on the deck of the Navy's Nimitz-class supercarrier USS George H W Bush, naval-technology.com reported.
An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator flies near the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush.

"This underway marked the first use of the Magic Carpet technology on an aircraft carrier. This software greatly reduces misses and wave-offs, which translates into more time on-mission and makes us an overall more effective force,” said Navy Assistant Air Operations Officer Lieutenant Commander Dan Marzluff.

The at-sea tests will continue, and follow recent successful land-based tests at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland.

The software name is an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. The technology is slated to deploy by 2019 on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growler electronic jamming aircraft.

The software maintains a commanded glideslope and angle of attack, allowing the pilot to concentrate on holding a proper line-up, the Navy said in a statement.

“A pilot can take symbology on the HUD (heads up display) and he can move it to a symbol or a place on the flight deck and let go of the controls. The airplane knows with that symbol that is where I want to land. It will continually land on that spot,” explained Rear Admiral Michael Manazir, Director of Air Warfare.

Pilots attempting to land on a carrier have to account for the speed of the aircraft speed and the ship, as well as weather. Magic Carpet reduces the number of adjustments the pilot must make while landing.

“When we land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier, it is kind of a three connection thing,” Manazir said. “You see the deviation, you correct, you re-correct and then you correct one more time as you go so there you are kind of chasing the parameters.”

“With Magic Carpet, the pilot can move the stick and move reference point and the stick does not have to re-correct. That is where the airplane is going to go. It is control-law software – and it actually moves the flight control surfaces to make that work to where the aircraft is going to go. It is not just symbology,” Manazir added.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150429/1021498660.html#ixzz3Ye1iaqb7

George1 wrote:End of Top Gun? Navy Sees Future Not in F-35s, But in Unmanned Aircraft

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150417/1020996417.html#ixzz3XZQpjy3v

Not surprising especially when considering the lighter, smaller, and most importantly cheaper design that UCAVs offer. US Navy Doctrine must be changing and understandably so when considering the last time the USN was tasked with achieving air supremacy by themselves.