F14B can carry GBU12 with TGP？

[captain_dalan]

not disagreeing with E advantage, and Raw radar range, except IFF capabilities of A/B tomcat were somewhat lacking from something from the 4th generation, even F15C's of gulf war vintage were given air superiority precedence for coalition forces over navies tomcats. Raw radar range is not everything, especially where unlike an F15, the F14 pilot is reliant on RIO, and with weaker IFF capabilities will be more reliant on getting visual confirmation.

 

I don't want to get into the whole Gulf War policy on CAP zones. There are better informed (and sourced) people then me on the subject. However, when i mean radar power, that is what i meant. It's not just range, it's raw power. A legacy Hornet would not just detect targets at lower range, it would "burn through" at lower ranges too. Thus a platform with better E and better bur through will be able to launch first and in better parameters. Couple that with short legs and the Bug can and will defend itself. But it won't win nor hold AS for you.

 

except A6 intruder is just a subsonic attack jet , not a multi role Fighter jet ( cant self escort or conduct a2a like the Hornet) .. , It cant compete too well in a contested A2A environment unless baby sat by escorts while the Hornet can. it too is archaic tech for 1990's +. Its something thatl be nice to have for 60s, 70s, and even into 80s ( depending on the variations). but by 1990 + many of its functions ( minus range perhaps ) can be filled by the Hornet.

 

And this era (the Cold War) is exactly my greatest sphere of interest. Enough diversity, potential for full large scale simulation of warfare and enough data to simulate the birds involved. That is why i mentioned the A-6 and the F-4.

 

 

So no A6 is what USN needs for legacy era but not quite for modern era. where either a Super Hornet would better augment A Hornet Fleet, by offering better range, and in part multirole strike supplemented by the F14D

 

In that regard even the av8B HArrier has much better a2a potential just for self defense than the A6, despite subsonic speed limitation it can still accelerate and climb well, and its very nimble, and later iteration have an/apg 65 radar plus aim120.

 

The A-6 would shame even the D Tomcats with payload and range capability. There is a reason why they stuck around for so long. It gave the NAVY the capability to strike hard and strike far, thus keeping the boats far away from shore.

 

As for the later argument, nah. Once you have a deck of Bugs and Super Bugs, there is no longer room for Tomcats there. Not unless you really want to simulate so alternate history scenarios in which the Turkeys were retired and kept on fighting, but that's just not cup of tea.

[Kev2go]

I don't want to get into the whole Gulf War policy on CAP zones. There are better informed (and sourced) people then me on the subject. However, when i mean radar power, that is what i meant. It's not just range, it's raw power. A legacy Hornet would not just detect targets at lower range, it would "burn through" at lower ranges too. Thus a platform with better E and better bur through will be able to launch first and in better parameters. Couple that with short legs and the Bug can and will defend itself. But it won't win nor hold AS for you.

 

 

 

And this era (the Cold War) is exactly my greatest sphere of interest. Enough diversity, potential for full large scale simulation of warfare and enough data to simulate the birds involved. That is why i mentioned the A-6 and the F-4.

 

 

 

The A-6 would shame even the D Tomcats with payload and range capability. There is a reason why they stuck around for so long. It gave the NAVY the capability to strike hard and strike far, thus keeping the boats far away from shore.

 

As for the later argument, nah. Once you have a deck of Bugs and Super Bugs, there is no longer room for Tomcats there. Not unless you really want to simulate so alternate history scenarios in which the Turkeys were retired and kept on fighting, but that's just not cup of tea.

 

But there was a period of time where hornets , super hornets, and F14s shared the deck. 1999-2006.

 

and in OIF from 2003-06 all these 3 platforms flew combat missions.

 

thaat being said the Straight of Hormuz will be sort of a fictional scenario against IRan given the map placement.

 

 

 

Thus a platform with better E and better bur through will be able to launch first and in better parameters. Couple that with short legs and the Bug can and will defend itself. But it won't win nor hold AS for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently the navy overseers felt differently when the decision was made to retire the F14. that CAP and Air superiority could be filled well enough by the Super hornets whilst keeping around the Legacy Hornets to augment navy aviation strength, given that the Cold war was over and there was no need for a long range aircraft to intercept potential soviet bomber threats to naval fleets. Yes fairly soon the navy is gonna get their F-35C's except that too are multi role strike fighters, and not dedicated AS like the F22, but even the Raptor can employ a2g muntions and has actually been dropped JDAMS in both tests, and in combat against ISIS.

 

similarly How an F16 ( with relatively comparable capabilities to the Hornet) is not a proper AS platform as the F15 eagle , but nonetheless they have proven to be capable of conducting of CAP as a primary mission.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Kev2go

[captain_dalan]

But there was a period of time where hornets , super hornets, and F14s shared the deck. 1999-2006.

 

 

As the first SH squadrons didn't reach operational readiness until 2001/2002 i would push that date a bit further up the time line. Since the 54's were retired by 2004 in these final 4 years of the "super" Tomcat, it was a glorified bomb truck. It's only defense against truly capable 4th gen fighters when on a strike mission, would be its speed. And did the super Hornets and the Tomcats actually ever served side by side on a carrier? I have never really done any research on the subject. Probably someone else did...... So...nah....no AS for the F-14 in this time period.

 

But....when we talk about AS in the NAVY:

 

Apparently the navy overseers felt differently when the decision was made to retire the F14. that CAP and Air superiority could be filled well enough by the Super hornets whilst keeping around the Legacy Hornets to augment navy aviation strength, given that the Cold war was over and there was no need for a long range aircraft to intercept potential soviet bomber threats to naval fleets.

 

Do you really think that Tomcat's retirement has anything to do with its AS capabilities......or even worse....with the Hornet's capabilities in that region? Just take a look who flies AS for the NAVY in the 21th century...... :noexpression:

 

 

similarly How an F16 ( with relatively comparable capabilities to the Hornet) is not a proper AS platform as the F15 eagle , but nonetheless they have proven to be capable of conducting of CAP as a primary mission.

 

F-16 in the AS role...... yeah, i guess we'll never agree on that one. If you mean the "poor man's" AS plane, then perhaps.

[Kev2go]

As the first SH squadrons didn't reach operational readiness until 2001/2002 i would push that date a bit further up the time line. Since the 54's were retired by 2004 in these final 4 years of the "super" Tomcat, it was a glorified bomb truck. It's only defense against truly capable 4th gen fighters when on a strike mission, would be its speed. And did the super Hornets and the Tomcats actually ever served side by side on a carrier? I have never really done any research on the subject. Probably someone else did...... So...nah....no AS for the F-14 in this time period.

 

But....when we talk about AS in the NAVY:

 

 

 

Do you really think that Tomcat's retirement has anything to do with its AS capabilities......or even worse....with the Hornet's capabilities in that region? Just take a look who flies AS for the NAVY in the 21th century...... :noexpression:

 

 

 

F-16 in the AS role...... yeah, i guess we'll never agree on that one. If you mean the "poor man's" AS plane, then perhaps.

 

yes again SH and F14 saw use in OIF, and there was a period where Both "shared" the deck.

 

 

 

so what if by that point in time F14 was being used more as a bomb truck? its still combat service. Again F14's deployment to OIF alone, still has more to show for than the F22's "combat" service record. again why so obsessive about exact historical scenarios when Straight of Hormuz is not going to be based on a real life Air battle or let alone an actual conflict? By your logic we shouldn't be flying ( or playing Western based campaigns) any western aircraft currently in Caucasus because US and nato IRL did not deploy Military assets to the 2008 Russo Georgian war......

 

and while wer at it guess SU25T shouldn't be in DCS either, becasue its far less relevance than any of the OIF era tomcats? only 8 combat versions ever produced, and only 2 ever saw limited use in the Caucasus theater in the second Chechen war. in 2000s program was cancelled.

 

there are far more F16s in USAF service than there are F15 AS eagles. So yes even USAF have flown CAP with the Vipers. ofcs in raw range its not as good, bu F16 is still deadly in a merge, Nicely compliment the F15,s and there can be far more of them to outnumber a enemy AS platform. the reason F16s are around is because F15 was simply too costly and mission specifc to have beeen the workhorse the F16 is. ( hence the "Hi-Low" mix ) even for the mighty US and their exorbitant military spending during the cold war.

 

So no thats not quite true. F16 may be inexpensive, but it is by no means makes it a poor mans plane. ( by that logic so is the legacy F18 being only slightly more expensive than the F16. ) At this point in time the most advanced vipers are Not even flown by the USAF but export ones, specifically on the top UAE Block 60. that has a AESA radar.

 

besides of the two the F16 did have a better p/w ratio than the Hornet and a higher top Mach speed.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Kev2go

[BlackLion213]

And did the super Hornets and the Tomcats actually ever served side by side on a carrier?

 

They did, at least once. CVW-14 with VF-31 and VFA-115 deployed July 2002-May 2003:

 

 

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVW-NKf.html

 

thaat being said the Straight of Hormuz will be sort of a fictional scenario against IRan given the map placement.

 

 

 

Doesn't have to be entirely fictitious. :)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nimble_Archer

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prime_Chance

 

 

Apparently the navy overseers felt differently when the decision was made to retire the F14. that CAP and Air superiority could be filled well enough by the Super hornets whilst keeping around the Legacy Hornets to augment navy aviation strength, given that the Cold war was over and there was no need for a long range aircraft to intercept potential soviet bomber threats to naval fleets.

 

There were no overseers who made the decision to retire the F-14. Instead the Secretary of defense cancelled further F-14D production against the serious objections by the Navy leadership. They wanted at least 200 new build F-14Ds, but were denied. Politics and personal industry preferences of Dick Cheney are potentially an issue too...but we don't need to go that far down the rabbit hole. :)

 

The Navy had reason to object for a couple reasons. The F-14D really did correct all the major deficiencies of the F-14A and was extremely capable. It was also a highly flexible platform with unmatched A-A capabilities, search capabilities, datalink, and would prove to be an outstanding A-G platform with minimal investment. It was expensive, but not really anymore so than the in-production F-14s of the time. But the biggest source of complaint - the Secretary of Defense was cancelling the F-14 in favor of a "paper airplane". Meaning everything was conceptual.

 

The concept sounded great - fix the primary deficiency in the Navy's newest and more reliable fighter to create an aircraft with a high degree of commonality with the existing Hornet, but able to take over the role of the F-14. Sounds great....

 

But it is a bit like cosmetic surgery, the concept is very desirable "they'll be how big?". But then you find yourself googling "symmastia" and wondering where it all went wrong.

 

In the case of the Super Hornet, the aircraft proved to have a final cost that was quite comparable to the F-14D (never mind the fact that it required another development program with all of that attendant cost while another completed program was disposed of), but it proved to have minimal commonality with the Legacy Hornet, still far less payload and range than the F-14, and a record number of operational deficiencies that took longer than expected to solve (transonic asymmetric wing drop, weapons separation problems, higher than expected transonic drag, poorer performance in the approach configuration, etc). It has proven to be a reliable platform (like the F-14D...) and it has been a good airplane for the Navy (accepting the fact that it is the slowest USN fighter since the F3H and F4D). But was all of this a wise choice...? Who knows...

 

The Navy has become far more dependent on the USAF and left the long-range strike business when the F-14 retired. Maybe it all would have happened anyway. But the F-14 is the only aircraft I am aware of that had a "reverse transition" - it left the reserves first, then the active squadrons and was deployed to combat theaters continuously until they were all gone. The USN was, by its own actions, pretty explicit concerning its opinion of the airplane. :)

 

-Nick

 

PS -

yes again SH and F14 saw use in OIF, and there was a period where Both "shared" the deck.

 

 

This is a squadron transition parade flight, not "sharing deck" per se. Deployments of both the Tomcat and Rhino on the same deck seemed to have been quite rare from what I have seen.

Edited April 19, 2017 by BlackLion213

[OnlyforDCS]

Retiring the F14D was a mistake in a long line of pretty big mistakes by the administration in power at the time. I'm not naming names and that's all Ill be saying on the subject. :)

[Kev2go]

They did, at least once. CVW-14 with VF-31 and VFA-115 deployed July 2002-May 2003:

 

 

Welll i guess we have to agree to disagree, frankly lower Costs and simpler logistics > best piece of expensive equipment in the bigger picture. In relative peacetime, Militaries get smaller budgets. Military cant always have thier way or theyd burden the taxpayers even more if they always got the what they want, especially since this was a during a relative peacetime period. ( nor more RED scare from the Russians) and when the "war on terror" came around lets be honest, even then you don't need top tier technology to bomb jihads or strike Authoritarian leaders in " banana republics".

 

Simiarly I suppose people look back on the F22 as a mistake to have cut back production, but its easy look back onto history with revisionist sunglasses knowing what we know today and not try think to think from the perspective from those years ago. at the time it seemed like a good decision given high costs and lack of any threats from peer or near peer foes to the US.

 

Im sure its always sad to see an iconic plane go, and its easy to in your passion for the aircraft to get in the way of clouding ones judgement. Im sure some here would even like the legendary P51D to live on in service. to try to blame everything on 1 Politician as a scapegoat inst fair . Cheney wasn't nessarily wrong in his decision to push to retire the F14, even if it was Contradictory to members of military Brass. given the costs of supporting a aging air frame and the reality of post cold war era, having a less needed role, even if F14D's with further updates would have kept the F14 relevant. Similarly the USAF is coming to similar crossroads, F15 AS are becoming harder to maintain, and now there is debate whether to retire themv or Suck up to the costs of maintaining an aged airframe, and putting in the $$ to airframe Refurbishments, and Upgrades to avionics.

 

The Super hornet IS far easier to maintain than the F14. Only about 15 hours of maintenance per flight hour needed, and far lest costly, than the F14 which required a staggering 60-80 hours of maintenance per flight. which was a even bigger hangar queen than the F15. air frames were not only ageing, but honestly the Variable sweep wing makes it more expensive to maintain alone. Not surprising that Aircraft designers in general have moved away from that type of wing.

 

at this point Since SH now have AESA radars they are definitely superior to the Tomcats in a2a electronics

 

and yes those small conflicts you linked aare minimal skirmishes. If you really want historical relevance as an argument it would have made far more sense for ED, to either make a different map or lengthen it to include Kuwait, Iraq, and more parts of Iran for IRan iraq war, and gulf war scenarios for some noteworthy combat.

 

realistically this map setup looks is more for a" what if we need to protect the UAE and or fight Iran" which i personally have no problem with really.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Kev2go

[captain_dalan]

Welll i guess we have to agree to disagree, frankly lower Costs and simpler logistics > best piece of expensive equipment in the bigger picture.

 

But you see, this was exactly the reason for the disagreement. No one ever said the F-14 was more cheep and easy to maintain then the legacy F/A-18. It was the other way around. What we did not agree upon was the performance of the respective aircraft. The F-14 was never retired because it lacked performance. It was retired for political reasons.

 

Im sure its alwasy sad to see an iconic plane go, and its easy to in your passion for the aircraft to get in the way of clouding ones judgement. Im sure some here would even like the legendary P51D to live on in service. to try to blame everything on 1 Politician as a scapegoat inst fair . Cheney wasn't nessarily wrong in his decision to push to retire the F14. given the costs of supporting a aging air frame and the reality of post cold war era, having a less needed role, even if F14D's with further updates would have kept the F14 relevant.

 

Looking back, i'd even say it was a good idea. As WW3 never broke out, the lack of naval air superiority never hurt the NAVY. So lots of money was saved, lots of capability was lost, everyone is happy. No fuss about it. However, if we judge the late 90's early 2000's Tomcat ever growing operational issues, we must not forget that they were largely the result of the program being killed in 91. With the entire assembly line scrapped, no spare parts, no new air frames it was just a matter of time. And as the bird was to be retired in a decade or so, no further advancement came as well. So no AMRAAMs, no avionics updates...... It's a chain. By 2006 it was truly an outdated plane as far as A-A roles were at stake. That is why i don't think including the D as modern naval AS platform to tango with the F-15C and Su-27 is actually relevant. Ground pounding? Sure, why not..... but that is never my intended use, so i'm in no hurry to get it (if ever).

 

If you really want historical relevance as an argument it would have made far more sense for ED, to either make a different map or lengthen it to include Kuwait, Iraq, and more parts of Iran for IRan iraq war, and gulf war scenarios for some noteworthy combat.

 

realistically this map setup looks is more for a" what if we need to protect the UAE and or fight Iran"

 

All the "war scenarios" we can play are alternate history and hypothetical. However (what i think) we are trying to get is a "what if" scenario in some historical context. In your example of the 2008 Caucasus map, what would have happened had the US got access and intervened? Well what thing is for certain, no F-14's would have been involved. Why? Cause they were all retired by then.

 

Now, if we play the card of what would have happened if the F-14 program was not killed, i would certainly support that. However, for that to work, we would have to enter not the historical fiction, but science (or speculative) fiction genre. If the F-14 was never retired (not the program killed), what radar would it have used? What avionics updates? Would it get stealthy air frame features? AMRAAM and 9x compatibility? HMS support? We just never will now, and any speculation on out part is futile. But, if conflict ever broke out between IRAN and US in the 80's, we know with an adequate degree of accuracy the capabilities of the systems used by both sides.

 

There were no overseers who made the decision to retire the F-14. Instead the Secretary of defense cancelled further F-14D production against the serious objections by the Navy leadership. They wanted at least 200 new build F-14Ds, but were denied. Politics and personal industry preferences of Dick Cheney are potentially an issue too...but we don't need to go that far down the rabbit hole.

 

The Navy had reason to object for a couple reasons. The F-14D really did correct all the major deficiencies of the F-14A and was extremely capable. It was also a highly flexible platform with unmatched A-A capabilities, search capabilities, datalink, and would prove to be an outstanding A-G platform with minimal investment. It was expensive, but not really anymore so than the in-production F-14s of the time. But the biggest source of complaint - the Secretary of Defense was cancelling the F-14 in favor of a "paper airplane".

 

Not to mention the NAVY never really wanted the legacy Hornet to begin with. Their idea was always for more F-14's. But again it was a politicians idea to cut expenses. So the F-14C was cut, as was the marine's version. The B was delayed and not even all the A's were produced.

 

 

F16 may be inexpensive, but it is by no means makes it a poor mans plane. ( by that logic so is the legacy F18 being only slightly more expensive than the F16. ) At this point in time the most advanced vipers are Not even flown by the USAF but export ones, specifically on the top UAE Block 60. that has a AESA radar.

 

besides of the two the F16 did have a better p/w ratio than the Hornet and a higher top Mach speed.

 

I never said the F-16 was the poor man's plane. It did and does it job quite well, for what it set out to do. And that was to complement the F-15's, never to replace them. It made out to be pretty good multi role plane with all the updates and for some countries that could not get or afford the F-15 it had to take on the AS role as well. But that is why i said it was the poor man's AS plane.

Edited April 19, 2017 by captain_dalan

[turkeydriver]

After years of seeing"cost" as a reason to justify anew platform, the term cost is completely poltical- the "savings" are never returned to the tax payer but are used to buy something else. So while the F/A-18 A-F is cheaper to maintain per flight hour, carrier maintenance is much higher on arresting and catapult gear and additional sorties for tanking are generated to meet a similar tomcat profile mission. Also- the Hornet SLEP programs are extremely costly and have largely negated Tomcat maintenance costs. So as a single unit, by itself the Hornet is cheaper. As a lifecycle weapon system, it doesn't really save the US Navy squat. The savings is real for the VF squadrons that went to E model Hornets and saved money on back seater training. That's about it.

[BlackLion213]

Well i guess we have to agree to disagree, frankly lower Costs and simpler logistics > best piece of expensive equipment in the bigger picture.

 

Certainly this is true with folding chairs, light bulbs, saltine crackers...but a combat aircraft carrying humans beings into a place where others are trying to kill them....surely there are other criteria? (yes, I am calling you Shirley :))

 

Cost and logistics are very important - which is why I am still questioning the decision to build the Super Hornet at much greater cost and more complicated logistics than the Legacy Hornet. If cost and simple logistics are the priority, why build the Super Hornet at all?

 

 

nor more RED scare from the Russians

 

Isn't this the same mentality that lead to the loss of 5000 aircraft over southeast Asia - the assumption that Russia or the Soviet Union is the enemy and that any other enemy is nothing to worry about? Plus, assuming that you know the threat and placing all planning/training emphasis on one type of threat is a rather flawed approach. Remember the F-4C that is lamented for lacking a gun - it was created by the above mindset. One must plan for all possible contingencies.

 

and when the "war on terror" came around lets be honest, even then you don't need top tier technology to bomb jihads or strike Authoritarian leaders in " banana republics".

 

The US (or any other militaries) doesn't actually have a weapon or capability that is genuinely effective for this threat - but that is another discussion/argument. :)

 

Simiarly I suppose people look back on the F22 as a mistake to have cut back production, but its easy look back onto history with revisionist sunglasses knowing what we know today and not try think to think from the perspective from those years ago. at the time it seemed like a good decision given high costs and lack of any threats from peer or near peer foes to the US.

 

You should read what I wrote again. :)

My criticism of the Super Hornet is not in the aircraft itself, but the fact that someone cancelled a completed and effective program of a desired aircraft to pursue an entirely new program under the assumption that it would be cheaper. Well intentioned? Perhaps. But the final result is a comparable fly-away cost after funding an entirely new program while wasting the cost of the F-14D program. Plus the cost of keeping those ancient aircraft flight worthy with no available replacement parts or tooling for parts. Meanwhile, they are paying for some expensive custom parts projects and desperately trying to get the most out of these relics knowing that it can do things that the replacement cannot so they better use it while they can (what a dreadful feeling). Hence the aircraft was on the front-line to the very end. This is wasteful and it is reasonable to point out a politicians poor decision making on the issue.

 

I am similarly critical of the A-12 project that spent 4 Billion dollars on an aircraft that never moved past the paper stage. This was a pretty big waste that sapped funds from a lot of other projects.

 

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft, but the idea of developing it after developing a comparable aircraft doesn't make sense to me with the attendant R&D costs. I haven't seen any evidence that money was saved. Even if maintenance is better, this needs to be amortized over the life of the program as a savings versus the cost of R&D/production.

 

Also, maintenance hours for the F-14D were running around 18-20 during the early 2000s, not ~60-80 hours (that was the F-14A/B with their analog avionics). One of the airframes in VF-154 in 2003 was built in 1974! Comparing the maintenance hours of a 30 year old airframe to a brand new airframe is a bit like comparing the doctors visits of a teenager to a 70 y/o.

 

Plus, the F-14D wouldn't be an "aging airframe" if produced as planned.

 

Im sure its always sad to see an iconic plane go, and its easy to in your passion for the aircraft to get in the way of clouding ones judgement. Im sure some here would even like the legendary P51D to live on in service. to try to blame everything on 1 Politician as a scapegoat inst fair .

 

True and I am not. Though be wary of your observer bias in thinking that just because an aircraft is operational that it was the better of available choices. If we don't reflect upon the past and try to improve then we are doomed to make the same mistakes - this is said often and rarely heeded.

 

Cheney wasn't nessarily wrong in his decision to push to retire the F14

 

True, but there is also no evidence that he was right.

 

The Super hornet IS far easier to maintain than the F14.

 

Probably easier, with 25% fewer manhours comparing new to new. But it better be! It went into service a decade later - there should be a little progress, right!

 

at this point Since SH now have AESA radars they are definitely superior to the Tomcats in a2a electronics

 

Faint praise. It went into service a decade later - there should be a little progress, right! :D

 

Lastly, my post never said that retiring the F-14 was a mistake. I said that it doesn't seem to have saved any money. Would you please respond to what I wrote instead of what you think that I wrote? :)

 

-Nick

[punk]

I'm sure its always sad to see an iconic plane go, and its easy to in your passion for the aircraft to get in the way of clouding ones judgement. I'm sure some here would even like the legendary P51D to live on in service. to try to blame everything on 1 Politician as a scapegoat inst fair . Cheney wasn't necessarily wrong in his decision to push to retire the F14, even if it was Contradictory to members of military Brass.

 

Well, I sure am glad you are "Sure" that fallacious arguments strengthen your viewpoints and overwhelm your readers minds in support of your theories. As one of those whose judgement is clouded by passion you can write off anything 'I' have an opinion on :)

 

In this case it almost assuredly can come down to one person or at least the wrong companies being given money if it makes you feel any better. Throughout it's life cycle, the Cats were constantly having their claws clipped and, "in the passionate view of this writer," was borderline negligent homicide since murder is a bit harsh and I am sure intent isn't easily provable when it comes down to it concerning the loss of preventable aircrew fatalities credited to the early engines.

 

The lip service of flight hour and maintenance costs were the smoke screen used to cover the graft in my opinion. Your thoughts will differ since yours are so enormously more enlightened than mine, I am sure. Many reports by the people on the ground in the maintenance sections and squadrons who studied these were ignored when they showed drastic improvements over time as changes to logistics and maintenance procedures were introduced. Politics (or even greed if you like) killed the Cats, not a superior platform, period. Of course, as a passionate admirer, you can ignore my drivel.

 

<Salute>

Punk

[Kev2go]

Certainly this is true with folding chairs, light bulbs, saltine crackers...but a combat aircraft carrying humans beings into a place where others are trying to kill them....surely there are other criteria? (yes, I am calling you Shirley :))

 

Cost and logistics are very important - which is why I am still questioning the decision to build the Super Hornet at much greater cost and more complicated logistics than the Legacy Hornet. If cost and simple logistics are the priority, why build the Super Hornet at all?

 

 

No this applies to military as well. IN ww2 Mass produced shermans and T34s, > more expeonsiv,e maintance hog, Few hundred tiger tanks. Yes these made a difference in the skirmish level, but on the strategic level, the Numbers won, not smaller ammounts opf superior technology.

 

so no this philosophy does not just apply to "folding chairs, light bulbs, Saltline crackers"

 

actually even if the Tomcat wasnt retired, SH still would have proved to be a fine inclusion ot the carrier deck. The the Super Hornet addressed the navies complaint "short legs" of the legacy hornet. plus a bigger frame has more potential for electronics upgrades for the future.

 

Shulda, woulda, Coulda, PAst a certain point as someone else mentioned is SCI fi , to speculate the what ifs of the more significant potential upgrades would have been around in todays time if the F14 program was not cancelled.

 

Shirely you see the advantage of having lesser expensive platforms that can do the job nearly as well and at a lesser cost, and are simpler to replace, and can be fielded potentially in larger Numbers if need be. In a large scale ww war where Attrition rates would be high this matter far more to produce new replacement equipment faster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't this the same mentality that lead to the loss of 5000 aircraft over southeast Asia - the assumption that Russia or the Soviet Union is the enemy and that any other enemy is nothing to worry about? Plus, assuming that you know the threat and placing all planning/training emphasis on one type of threat is a rather flawed approach. Remember the F-4C that is lamented for lacking a gun - it was created by the above mindset. One must plan for all possible contingencies.

 

 

 

 

that entirely different story, Political restraint lost the Vietnam war, thats a entirely different matter. Current 21st century technology with current training wouldn't have changed the outcome Vietnam war if the same political Roadblocks were there with overzealous white house civilian Micro management and imposing unreasonable ROE.

 

 

also the lack of gun wasnt the main problem, but lack necessary of training. Note hoew Unlike the AF which merely slapped on a gun on thier phantoms instead of adressing the underlying issue: training, which the navy Addressed: Hence Top gun.

 

USN gunless phantom still had a higher Kill ratio. Training for proper missile employment in e era of far less sophisticated missiles made afar greater impact. The gun would have merely been the cherry on top with training.

 

 

 

 

 

The US (or any other militaries) doesn't actually have a weapon or capability that is genuinely effective for this threat - but that is another discussion/argument. :)

 

 

Again entirely different matter discussion i dont see why you bring it up if you dont want to discuss it. BUt for COIN operations or supporting trooops in lower intesnity confclits you dont need High tech aircraft. Its one of the thing were even the humble A10, or "trainer on Steriods" like the A29 Tucano can conduct do to low threats from surface to air. so My point was that "War in on terror" and related operations in Afghanistan or IRaq would not have justified preserving the tomcat.

 

 

 

You should read what I wrote again.

My criticism of the Super Hornet is not in the aircraft itself, but the fact that someone cancelled a completed and effective program of a desired aircraft to pursue an entirely new program under the assumption that it would be cheaper. Well intentioned? Perhaps. But the final result is a comparable fly-away cost after funding an entirely new program while wasting the cost of the F-14D program. Plus the cost of keeping those ancient aircraft flight worthy with no available replacement parts or tooling for parts. Meanwhile, they are paying for some expensive custom parts projects and desperately trying to get the most out of these relics knowing that it can do things that the replacement cannot so they better use it while they can (what a dreadful feeling). Hence the aircraft was on the front-line to the very end. This is wasteful and it is reasonable to point out a politicians poor decision making on the issue.

 

 

I am similarly critical of the A-12 project that spent 4 Billion dollars on an aircraft that never moved past the paper stage. This was a pretty big waste that sapped funds from a lot of other projects.

 

 

Waste of money perhaps, BUt Should coulda woulda, Money was spent already, IF the SH was not adopted, then that would have been 4 billion wasted without anything to show for. At least SH gave something.

 

 

Yes the A12 was cancelled. SO F/A18E/F was a improvement on the legacy hornets as mentioned earlier. Its technically labeled was a interim solution until the navy got thier next generation aircraft. Navy may not gotten thier A12 but theyl be getting the

F-35C in near future. I never did say the SH was ideal replacement for a F14 ( assuming it got upgraded further), but honestly F35 isn't exactly a "Replacement" for the A10 in the traditional sense either. By this points its Arguing over semantics. Yes the Super hornet made sense, It was arguably more future proof than simply keeping around Legacy Hornets alone after F14 retirement, especially since the SH will serve far longer into the future.. Again Even IF there was a bigger budget and F14s were kept around longer ID say a SH would be a welcome aircraft on the Deck.

 

 

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft, but the idea of developing it after developing a comparable aircraft doesn't make sense to me with the attendant R&D costs. I haven't seen any evidence that money was saved. Even if maintenance is better, this needs to be amortized over the life of the program as a savings versus the cost of R&D/production.

 

Yes again Super hornet is more future proof, F14 airframes would be even older today Even if you made new frames variable sweep wing, whilst a marvel of engineering design is an unnecessary complication, which alone made the F14 more expensive to operate. IF Grumman really wanted to have a better SH competitor to better compete in the price dept they should have simplified a new F-14 frame with fixed wings. but then again the redesigning costs and new tooling would be more expensive in the long run.

 

Again id argue that instead it doesnt make sense to produce a Dated aircraft Airframe design over a new one ( even if case of SH shares similarities to the Legacy Hornet design )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True and I am not. Though be wary of your observer bias in thinking that just because an aircraft is operational that it was the better of available choices. If we don't reflect upon the past and try to improve then we are doomed to make the same mistakes - this is said often and rarely heeded.

 

 

 

I have no bias, Neutrality is not bias. & What operational aircraft? yout the one arguing that the F14D was a better choice because it was already operational.

 

 

 

True, but there is also no evidence that he was right.

 

 

 

and there is no evidence you are right either saying the F14 was necessary to keep, and that it didn't save costs, IN a post cold war era, where Costs in general were being cut down. compared to spending From the regan era. this is simply by this point a difference in opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, my post never said that retiring the F-14 was a mistake. I said that it doesn't seem to have saved any money. Would you please respond to what I wrote instead of what you think that I wrote? :)

 

 

But it did, saved money was simply invested elsewhere in the military.

 

-Nick

Edited April 21, 2017 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Well, I sure am glad you are "Sure" that fallacious arguments strengthen your viewpoints and overwhelm your readers minds in support of your theories. As one of those whose judgement is clouded by passion you can write off anything 'I' have an opinion on :)

 

In this case it almost assuredly can come down to one person or at least the wrong companies being given money if it makes you feel any better. Throughout it's life cycle, the Cats were constantly having their claws clipped and, "in the passionate view of this writer," was borderline negligent homicide since murder is a bit harsh and I am sure intent isn't easily provable when it comes down to it concerning the loss of preventable aircrew fatalities credited to the early engines.

 

The lip service of flight hour and maintenance costs were the smoke screen used to cover the graft in my opinion. Your thoughts will differ since yours are so enormously more enlightened than mine, I am sure. Many reports by the people on the ground in the maintenance sections and squadrons who studied these were ignored when they showed drastic improvements over time as changes to logistics and maintenance procedures were introduced. Politics (or even greed if you like) killed the Cats, not a superior platform, period. Of course, as a passionate admirer, you can ignore my drivel.

 

 

 

 

 

<Salute>

Punk

 

 

 

 

yea your right, i should probably ingore your drivel :)

 

similarly their also some people who are obsessively salty about A-10 retirement, and F35 "replacement" for its roles, though unlike the F14 , the A10 actually has a new life in lower intensity conflicts, given its the cheapest fixed wing combat aircraft in operation for the USAF, so it was naturally harder to justify retiring, since there are clear cost savings. BUt yea even then id kinda side with the AF brass, some of the A10's original CAS characteristics are Niche in the 21st century, and its not going to fare well in a contested environment against a near peer foe.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Kev2go

[BlackLion213]

that entirely different story, Political restraint lost the Vietnam war, thats a entirely different matter. Current 21st century technology with current training wouldn't have changed the outcome Vietnam war if the same political Roadblocks were there with overzealous white house civilian Micro management and imposing unreasonable ROE.

 

Training and operational doctrine do not exist in a vacuum - these issues wee built together by the same misconception and assumption concerning what was needed. For example, F-105D bombing accuracy was less than needed for the Vietnam conflict because crews spent most of their time training for nuclear delivery. Accuracy was perfectly satisfactory for a nuclear weapon, but not a 750 lb bomb. Priority was given to one scenario and it cost the US Military dearly.

 

 

Again entirely different matter discussion i dont see why you bring it up if you dont want to discuss it. BUt for COIN operations or supporting trooops in lower intesnity confclits you dont need High tech aircraft. Its one of the thing were even the humble A10, or "trainer on Steriods" like the A29 Tucano can conduct do to low threats from surface to air. so My point was that "War in on terror" and related operations in Afghanistan or IRaq would not have justified preserving the tomcat.

 

My point is that a tool that kills people will ultimately fail in addressing this threat. The problem is bigger than the military.

 

That said, the F-14 was indispensible during OEF and OIF in its FAC(A) role and was even forward deployed to land bases at the peak of OIF. It stayed quite relevant.

 

Waste of money perhaps, BUt Should coulda woulda, Money was spent already, IF the SH was not adopted, then that would have been 4 billion wasted without anything to show for. At least SH gave something.

 

What did it give? You have only stated a series of assumptions. Please show me the real benefit - or at least admit that it is uncertain.

 

Yes again Super hornet is more future proof, F14 airframes would be even older today Even if you made new frames variable sweep wing, whilst a marvel of engineering design is an unnecessary complication, which alone made the F14 more expensive to operate. IF Grumman really wanted to have a better SH competitor to better compete in the price dept they should have simplified a new F-14 frame with fixed wings. but then again the redesigning costs and new tooling would be more expensive in the long run.

 

The fixed wing version of the F-14 was more expensive, heavier, and performed more poorly during Grumman's internal testing. Can you show me the cost savings of the Super Hornet - I mean in concrete terms like dollars not "it's like the Legacy Hornet so cheaper"? Please make a real argument supported by something reasonably solid - not flatus and moonbeams like the one above.

 

Again id argue that instead it doesnt make sense to produce a Dated aircraft Airframe design over a new one ( even if case of SH shares similarities to the Legacy Hornet design )

 

Why is it dated? The F/A-18's first flight was only 6 years later than the F-14A's and the F-14D's avionics suite was designed and implemented at the same time as the F/A-18C's. Would you be mores specific? You seem to be making statements on foregone conclusions here.

 

I have no bias, Neutrality is not bias. & What operational aircraft? yout the one arguing that the F14D was a better choice because it was already operational.

 

If you are a human being you are biased. It is an inescapable feature for us. Best to recognize it since that helps one to see past it. :)

 

and there is no evidence you are right either saying the F14 was necessary to keep, and that it didn't save costs, IN a post cold war era, where Costs in general were being cut down. compared to spending From the regan era. this is simply by this point a difference in opinion.

 

I didn't say it was necessary to keep the F-14D. Where did you read that?

 

But it did, saved money was simply invested elsewhere in the military.

 

Show me that money. I have simply said there is no proof that the Rhino saved the Navy money. You seem convinced it did - please show me why.

 

-Nick

 

PS - Would you please proof read and limit the spelling and grammatical errors? Sorting them out gets tiresome after a while and it doesn't reflect well.

[OnlyforDCS]

When was the last F14D rolled off the factory floor? Anyone have that info?

 

All this talk of costs, and savings... Are costs more important than capability?

More important than security? What about the lives of the pilots themselves? Are costs and savings more important than any of those things?

Edited April 21, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[captain_dalan]

 

What did it give? You have only stated a series of assumptions. Please show me the real benefit - or at least admit that it is uncertain.

 

What do you mean, what did it give? The carriers now have to be closer then ever to their targets. The NAVY has to count on the AF for providing air superiority! I call those major gains! :huh:

 

 

The fixed wing version of the F-14 was more expensive, heavier, and performed more poorly during Grumman's internal testing.

 

I don't know if it was cheaper, but it definitely failed on the performance and landing characteristics. Besides, we've already established that this wasn't what killed the Cat. All the Grumman cost cuts proposals were refused. And that tells you something.

 

When was the last F14D rolled off the factory floor? Anyone have that info?

 

All this talk of costs, and savings... Are costs more important than capability?

More important than security? What about the lives of the pilots themselves? Are costs and savings more important than any of those things?

 

Probably sometimes during 1991, i don't know the exact date or the frame number though.

 

As for the costs, to some scale they are. I mean look even now, there are people that argue the entire concept of a carrier group should be abandoned. If you go by Boyd, you should fill the sky with cheep blind day time fighters. Who cares how many of them die by stand off missiles. You will overwhelm the enemy by numbers. It worked in WW2, right?

 

EDIT-EDIT-EDIT

I find it a bit ironic that the 18E/F was actually the plane that the NAVY preferred to get when they acquired the legacy 18's. Naval operations never really favored light fighters. A dedicated AS platform would have worked well along side a multi role capable plane like the Super Bug. Alas, things don't always work as planned.

Edited April 21, 2017 by captain_dalan

[33-DFTC]

When was the last F14D rolled off the factory floor? Anyone have that info?

 

"Finally, on 23 March 1990 the first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line. But sadly, the last one followed only little more than two years later on 20 July 1992."

 

Source: Home of M.A.T.S

[Kev2go]

Training and operational doctrine do not exist in a vacuum - these issues wee built together by the same misconception and assumption concerning what was needed. For example, F-105D bombing accuracy was less than needed for the Vietnam conflict because crews spent most of their time training for nuclear delivery. Accuracy was perfectly satisfactory for a nuclear weapon, but not a 750 lb bomb. Priority was given to one scenario and it cost the US Military dearly.

 

 

 

Again accuracy of bombs would not have changed the outcome of the Vietnam war. Americans paid dearly because they fought a war with a hand behind their back, and because it was a war without any easily identifiable goals. At that against a determined foe, that wouldn't back down. If you send bomber to bomb the same outhouse with the same flight plan every day of the week, hitting the same areas, because pencil pushers want you to despite contrary to local field intelligence, Your going to take unnecessary losses, period. using body count as a measure of success does not guarantee victory. Look at the difference that Operation linebacker 2 made when politicians let the in field commanders do their thing, and loosened ROE. A week of un-restricted bombing accomplished what 3 year long rolling thunder failed to do. In this case change in policy played a far greater impact than What platform was used best and How accurate they were in striking targets.

 

Besides what you did not to consider is that F105 was not inaccurate in bombing specifically as a isolated problem just for those pilots. this was due to combat stress causing them to miss. Dunno about you, but having to worry about SAMs threats up high and then AAA shooting at you as they dived down to bomb with unguided weaponry, seems something that would affect you. It would and in fact did drastically degrade pilots performance when compared at Training Range setting. This is one of the lessons what pushed towards further development of guided air to surface munitions, as the war went along.

 

 

besides its not like the Soviets did much better. during vietnam timeframe Thier aircraft were specifically designed to meet thier very own defense needs, and doctrine which too was Primarily suited around GCI against NATO Bombers with a secondary Ar combat role against fighters. Soviets were were not well adapted to the Afghanistan guerrilla war either. and arguably worse given Conscript training and more rigid doctrine.

 

 

 

That said, the F-14 was indispensable during OEF and OIF in its FAC(A) role and was even forward deployed to land bases at the peak of OIF. It stayed quite relevant.

 

 

Ofcs any Aircraft in service will always find some USE. But in given ts specialty was supposed to be Interceptor, with a AS role, It was no longer used as such by this point.

 

Even the A-10 before its charlie updates was still finding "use", or was "indispensable " depending on who you ask.

 

 

What did it give? You have only stated a series of assumptions. Please show me the real benefit - or at least admit that it is uncertain.

 

 

What did it give? already mentioned before. the Super hornet addressed the short comings of the " short legs" of the initial Legacy Hornet, Plus had more newer electronics fitted in as a cherry on top, and with its further evolution is a solid 4.5 Gen platform with its AN APG 79 AESA radar. PLUS Boeing out of their own pocket ( not government required contract) recently developed the block 3 super hornet. (Unlike proposed Grumman's Updates which were paper ) Boeing has already made a working prototype of the block 3 SH, and it essentially would be ready to be put production, when the contracts for orders come in. Quite a drastic Upgrade, given it essentially has latest electronics and software that are comparable to the F-35, minus the 5th gen Stealth capabilities. ( but it does have further lowered RCS compared to earlier blocks)

 

 

 

http://www.boeing.com/defense/fa-18-super-hornet/#/details/start3D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECF00aYcDCY

 

 

The fixed wing version of the F-14 was more expensive, heavier, and performed more poorly during Grumman's internal testing. Can you show me the cost savings of the Super Hornet - I mean in concrete terms like dollars not "it's like the Legacy Hornet so cheaper"? Please make a real argument supported by something reasonably solid - not flatus and moonbeams like the one above.

 

 

and can you show me the so called exact #'s of greater cost saving if THe aged f14D was upgraded and supported until the future?

 

Cheney may have pushed to retire the F14, but ultimately it was congress that approved the F/A18E/F over the F14D quick strike and other more advanced proposed upgrades, especially since it did not exactly meet the specifications set, and the conclusion was made the F14D would have been more costly in the long run.

 

 

 

Why is it dated? The F/A-18's first flight was only 6 years later than the F-14A's and the F-14D's avionics suite was designed and implemented at the same time as the F/A-18C's. Would you be mores specific? You seem to be making statements on foregone conclusions here.

 

 

Um yes that's the Legacy hornet, but the Super hornet is developed in the 90s, and the first ones do not enter service till about end of the 20th century. Yes its based on the original design, but has many new features. For all intents and purposes it may as well be a new aircraft considering the Air frame changes. Despite visual similarities it is larger and has some redesign, and as mentioned earlier it has seen further improvements.

 

 

 

My point is that a tool that kills people will ultimately fail in addressing this threat. The problem is bigger than the military.

 

 

This is not relevant then to the discussion? besides in general the the last few pages has been steered far of course given the title of the thread. which by the way question is more or less been answered.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Kev2go

[BlackLion213]

Again accuracy of bombs would not have changed the outcome of the Vietnam war. Americans paid dearly because they fought a war with a hand behind their back, and because it was a war without any easily identifiable goals.

 

Better accuracy would mean fewer sorties and fewer losses. The cumulative effect of better equipment, better understanding of the enemy, RHAW gear, Wild Weasels, much better training, and realistic exercises such as Red Flag were hugely important. Flexibility, broad capabilities, and extensive trainings are key. Future wars could have the same political constraints - best to optimize every role and skill that you can.

 

Ofcs any Aircraft in service will always find some USE. But in given ts specialty was supposed to be Interceptor, with a AS role, It was no longer used as such by this point.

 

Even the A-10 before its charlie updates was still finding "use", or was "indispensable " depending on who you ask.

 

The Tomcat was called indispensable by Senators John McCain and John Glen along with the secretary of the Navy.

 

And of course the Tomcat was still the most powerful and flexible aircraft in the fleet until the day it left.

 

 

Being indispensable doesn't mean that you won't be dispensed with....

 

What did it give? already mentioned before. the Super hornet addressed the short comings of the " short legs" of the initial Legacy Hornet

 

Great, but it still has less range, payload, speed, endurance, sensor capability than the aircraft it replaced. Nice upgrade. Best to depict these events for what they were - the Navy sacrificed capability to adopt an airframe that was supposed to be similar to one of its operational aircraft (but ultimately wasn't so similar - such is life). It was a compromise to try and save money, which might not have happened. A worthy aspiration...perhaps, but it still resulted in duplication of work with duplication of expense. That is the part that is hard for me to reconcile. The most costly portion of the F-14D program was done and the F-14D was operational. To then start over with a totally new program is very expensive.

 

Think about it this way: your older car has less than stellar fuel economy so you decide to buy a new car with better fuel economy, but then you have to fund the cost of the new vehicle and still the cost of fuel. The numbers have to be really extreme before you break even (very inexpensive car with unbelievable fuel economy), let alone save money.

 

It is the duplication of work after funding both projects and completing both that doesn't make sense.

 

If the Navy wanted to retire the Tomcat, what the Navy deserved was a clean sheet design. That would have been a far more logical approach. The F/A-18E/F was sold to Congress as a "modest upgrade" to address known short-comings and as you said, it became a totally new aircraft . It turned out much like the F-84F, too many constraints that compromised the best efforts. Who knows, may be you can't build a Navy aircraft that has decent range and is supersonic below 10,000' without variable geometry...but I bet it is possible.

 

AESA radar is nice, but you can fit that to anything with an A-A radar. The fundamentals have to be good and that is where the Super Hornet is lacking. Outward canted pylons so that bombs don't blow it apart with every strike, subsonic performance with any real ordnance....

 

It's funny talking about RCS when it flies with 2-3 Hindenburg sized fuel tanks for every sortie. There is no RCS benefit when carrying those behemoths - canted outward no less. I'd like someone to discuss the RCS optimization of the tanks - that would be a real solution.

 

Notice that the F-35 is mission capable on internal fuel (it carries 20,000 lbs), that solves a lot of current performance short-comings for the Rhino.

 

and can you show me the so called exact #'s of greater cost saving if THe aged f14D was upgraded and supported until the future?

 

No and that is the point - stop making claims of savings without evidence. Please tell the truth: you don't know.

 

It's OK to think or suppose, but don't state something as though it is a fact. The Super Hornet could easily be a losing proposition cost wise. Unless you have evidence, there is nothing more to say than "I hope or I think".

 

-Nick

Edited April 22, 2017 by BlackLion213

[turkeydriver]

Kev2go the SH did not address the shortcomings of the legacy F/A-18- they attempted to. What you are reading is advertising. The Supercarrier concept is crippled by the E/F/G series of aircraft. The idiotic wing it left the factory with marginalizes any range given by the extra gas. The "cost" savings are a lie because the necessary upgrades they later received via Block2 were separate funding items(ATFLIR, APG-79, AIM-120D and C-7). The extra pylons are negated because you rarely see SH carry a dual load other than AMRAAMs on a pylon due to greater drag. Some E/F squadrons don't carry wing tanks on the inboard stations because the majority of the gas is used to carry the tank. The S/H succeeds only as a stop gap and is effective at dropping small GBUs on 3rd world countries. As for saying the F-14 was built to be an interceptor only and that is it's only strength.....well I guess that children's book of fighter planes is a fun read but not really accurate. Read about the units brought inland for dedicated SOF support during OIF. The F-14s were requested over the F-15E, F-16, F-18 units there as well due to its range and ability to reach the area faster than all the other bomb trucks. The ancient F-14A had a much larger screen for showing a LANTIRN image than the F-15 and it allowed for greater accuracy. Yes, aging aircraft find new roles to fill out their service lives, but the F-14 was built from day to take these missions. Just because the Navy focused funds and training on fleet defense during the cold war doesn't mean the aircraft wasn't built to do other missions. You would be accurate in stating the AWG-9/AIM-54 was purpose built for intercept work. When they discovered A/G modes could be added, they decided the funding was too expensive. They made the same decision with the APG-71, although if there was an F-14D flying today, imagine what it would do with an AESA antenna and A-G modes.

[OnlyforDCS]

People will rarely change their opinion even when presented with cold, hard facts. The Tomcat airframe, is superior in every way to the SuperBug. It has longer legs, is more maneuverable, its faster in all and every condition of the flight envelope, it can go supersonic with stores, the list goes on and on...

 

These are all specifications that can be looked up easily and found pretty much everywhere online.

 

Look at the history and development of airframes in the US Navy and the Air Force. Never before in the history of jet fighters (although the F104 comes close) has a newer but less capable, less advanced airframe replaced an older more capable one.

 

Sure the Hornet and Superhornet have some amazing abilites. Thanks to their great sensor suites and weapons. But all of those upgrades could have been done on the Tomcats. Retiring a very capable and succesful airframe and replacing it with a less capable one is nothing short of a travesty, I wouldn't call it treason exactly, but I think it comes close. Im not sure how more people in the Military have not come out and spoken out against it because it was truly a mindbogglingly stupid FUBAR of immense proportions.

Edited April 22, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Top Jockey]

People will rarely change their opinion even when presented with cold, hard facts. The Tomcat airframe, is superior in every way to the SuperBug. It has longer legs, is more maneuverable, its faster in all and every condition of the flight envelope, it can go supersonic with stores, the list goes on and on...

 

These are all specifications that can be looked up easily and found pretty much everywhere online.

 

Look at the history and development of airframes in the US Navy and the Air Force. Never before in the history of jet fighters (although the F104 comes close) has a newer but less capable, less advanced airframe replaced an older more capable one.

 

Sure the Hornet and Superhornet have some amazing abilites. Thanks to their great sensor suites and weapons. But all of those upgrades could have been done on the Tomcats. Retiring a very capable and succesful airframe and replacing it with a less capable one is nothing short of a travesty, I wouldn't call it treason exactly, but I think it comes close. Im not sure how more people in the Military have not come out and spoken out against it because it was truly a mindbogglingly stupid FUBAR of immense proportions.

 

Man, and I thought I liked the Tomcat...

[Kev2go]

Better accuracy would mean fewer sorties and fewer losses. The cumulative effect of better equipment, better understanding of the enemy, RHAW gear, Wild Weasels, much better training, and realistic exercises such as Red Flag were hugely important. Flexibility, broad capabilities, and extensive trainings are key. Future wars could have the same political constraints - best to optimize every role and skill that you can.

 

 

 

Notice that the F-35 is mission capable on internal fuel (it carries 20,000 lbs), that solves a lot of current performance short-comings for the Rhino.

 

 

 

-Nick

 

 

Yes better training and technology helps in reducing losses and increases effectiveness of strike. There is no disagreement there.but it would not have changed the outcome of the vietnam war with the same political constraints, especially given rolling thunder 1965-1968,. It would have ended with smaller Losses, but the end result is the same. Vietnamese sign a Peace agreement, spend around 2 years rearming, and replenish thier losses, and then as soon as america packs up and leaves, they steamroll the south. They were not capable of helping themselves, and America refused to continue to stay there, or even providing funding to the South's military.

 

Well and here' the F18E/F playing out its interim solution. with the F35 coming around the Navy will have thier next gen replacement for the Hornet series. However With the retirement of the F14, and Considering thers going ot be a 19 year gap between first SH and towards when the first F35C's are slated to go IOC. Certinaly the F35 is much more capable , if they go to war with a neer peer Foe. Although it seems they are considering to keep around the SH until 2030-40 when 6th gen comes around. Apparently the navy is interested in operating the SH alongside the F35 and upgrading to block 3.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Kev2go

[Buzzles]

Congratulations gentlemen, you've gone massively off topic and filled the last few pages with absolute guff.

 

Is it possible to go back to the actual topic about the F-14 dropping bombs?

 

Does anyone have any bombing tables/guides or info about how it went about being a bomb truck?

[BlackLion213]

Well and here' the F18E/F playing out its interim solution. with the F35 coming around the Navy will have thier next gen replacement for the Hornet series. However With the retirement of the F14, and Considering thers going ot be a 19 year gap between first SH and towards when the first F35C's are slated to go IOC. Certinaly the F35 is much more capable , if they go to war with a neer peer Foe. Although it seems they are considering to keep around the SH until 2030-40 when 6th gen comes around. Apparently the navy is interested in operating the SH alongside the F35 and upgrading to block 3.

 

I hope the F-35C performs well for the Navy and I think the F-35C and F/A-18E/F will be very complimentary platforms. The Hornet is very versatile and excellent at ACM while the F-35 brings back the Navy's deep strike capability (at least as advertised).

 

Given the investment put into the Rhino already, continued upgrades and optimization sounds like the best way forward to me.

 

Does anyone have any bombing tables/guides or info about how it went about being a bomb truck?

 

It is pretty straightforward - the Tomcat's belly (Phoenix) pallets can mount bombs from 500 lbs to 2000 lbs. This allows for 4 hardpoints with a max of 2000 lbs per hardpoint. No MERs were developed, though Grumman took some publicity shots with MERs during the early 1970s before the USMC pulled out of the Tomcat program. It can also carry CBUs on the pallets, but I've only seen that during Operation Southern Watch in the late 90s.

 

 

Operationally, Tomcats typically carried GBUs (GBU-10/12/16) though iron bombs (Mk 82/83/84) were also carried sometimes, though more so before the LANTIRN upgrade.

 

The F-14B/D's were also cleared to drop JDAMs a couple of years before their retirement.

 

 

-Nick