Question about F-14&AIM-54

[D-Scythe]

I think that had more to do with the misison and the fact the Phantoms in question where bombtrucks, no?

 

Ans some very smart Pentagon people decided that it didn't need a gun?

 

No. It was because the MiG-17 is absolutely lethal in a slow-speed knifefight, probably even better than an F/A-18 Hornet or MiG-29. Pilots who have flown against it has described trying to get a MiG-17 off your tail was like trying to shake gum off that's stuck on your shoe.

 

I can accept the rest of your arguments, but here I'm not so sure: there are numerous accounts of the 2003 Iraq campaign where in mixed Tomcats/Hornet flights the Tomcats had to WAIT at every WP for the Hornet to rejoin.

 

I agree max performance is rather academic, but I just think the Tomcats flies faster throughout the envelope, no? I thought it just more easily took speed, like a slick aerodynamic car speeds up easier than a hummer.

 

I said the F-14 had an advantage in speed, but it is rather negligible. It can't apply that. Being 20 kts faster while cruising is basically useless, tactically. The GBU-24 that's released isn't gonna care either way.

 

The way I see it, anything the Tomcat can do that the Hornet cannot, would be handled by the F-35 (and then some). The JSF should be a formidable fighter in its own right, with agility, stealth, good SA and, albeit limited, supercruise.

 

Hey GG, do you think that generally missile PK should be increased two or two and a half times? The PKs I'm seeing in on-line play is something like only a half or a third of what some missiles have done in combat. For example, like AMRAAM - it's PK online is 30% tops, while in combat it's over 60%.

[GGTharos]

I'm of two minds on that D-Scythe ... on one hand, you're correct about the numebr in LOMAC ... I even did some stat counting for it.

 

On the other, the 120's Pk is against opposition that isn't well practiced in evading this sort of weapon, IMHO, or who did not even have a comparable weapon to fire back at the 120 equipped aircraft - should that have been the case, we may have easily seen lower Pk ... assumption on my part, here, though.

 

I do think that there are CERTAIN very specific peculiarities with LOMAC's missiles that currently decrease Pk in some situations where they really shouldn't (again, somewhat educated opinion on my part)

[Starlight]

Care to tell me why MiG-17s made mincemeat out of the faster, longer ranged and higher flying F-4 Phantom?

because of poor RoE. because early Phantoms were without a gun. Because early missiles were even less efficient than they are now. And because crews were not trained for that kinda combat (mostly were trained for nuclear bombing, long range bomber intercept)

The Phantom was a good aircraft for its time. It had drawbacks, but with the same aircraft the crews performed well when they knew how to employ it.

 

Indeed, speed is life. There is no denying that.

So yes, with afterburners, perhaps it can run away better, or get to a fight quicker, but that's hardly enough to give the Tomcat such a significant advantage in speed.

They are completely different aircraft. The Hornet performs better at knife range. At slow speeds some say it performs even better than the F-16. But after 400 knots, AFAIK, the Hornet is very slow to accelerate.

Instead the Tomcat boasts a powerful acceleration at all regimes, is quite maneuvrable at low speeds but early versions suffered severe engine problems. They couldn't sustain any turning fight with good opponents.

The F-14D is a new breed of 'Cat, and demonstrated it has good chances to win against all -teen fighters.

 

For example, compare what the F-14 did in Desert Storm to what the F/A-18C did, and tell me that the F-14's top speed/acceleration advantage in acceleration and speed shows up in its combat record.

Hint: it DOESN'T. The only thing Tomcats did was shoot down an Iraqi helicopter. The Hornet got 2 MiG-21 kills. A F-14 got shot down by an SA-2. No Hornets were lost, plus they spent far more time in higher-threat airspace then did the Tomcat.

The combat record of the Gulf War was totally influenced by the tactical situation. AWACS were vectoring mainly F-15 to air targets, that's why they were the only aircraft to achieve kills.

Your record is further wrong, because the Hornet got shot down too... not only, but the Hornet was the first aircraft to fall in the Iraqi skies. It's still unknown what shot it down. Some sources claimed an SAM, some a Mig-25 kill. The pilot was never rescued, not even found.

 

The Tomcats did extremely dangerous missions too in the Gulf War, because they flew TARPS missions alone, while the Hornets went in always with Prowler escort.

 

Good fighters have both speed and maneuverability, and in the latter, the F/A-18E/F still performs better than the F-14.

If you compare the F-14D and the F-18E I'm not sure the latter has the edge. It's a bit more maneuvrable, but it's MUCH slower, and more than that, it simply can't keep a high speed in a real mission. It doesn't have supercruise, instead Hornets are usually thirsty aircraft. If they want a decent range they must slow down. If they cruise fast, the range is very very short. Comparing the F-18E to the F-14A wouldn't make sense!

 

Supercruise is the ultimate application of speed, and since the F-35 would most likely have it, I fail to see how the Navy is losing anything in terms of speed with the retirement of the F-14.

First, the replacement of the F-14 is the F-18E, not the F-35. Second, the F-35 is still on trials. It can supercruise ok, but with how much payload? 2 amraams in an internal bay? Hang a couple of bombs before comparing to aircraft in service. A clean aircraft is useful only in airshows.

 

Ah, so I assume you've been talking with nature then? Hmm, interesting you're not already in the Pentagon or something then, cause you obviously know something they don't when it comes to winning future wars.

 

Well, because a project has been approved by USN or Pentagon, it doesn't mean it's the best (A-12 Avenger is THE example). Furthermore it seems that recently politicians have been much more influenced by industrial lobbies than from military personnel. In the past it wasn't like that, so we had great fighters, like F-14, F-15, F-16. Milestones in fighter aircraft technology.

In the sixties the projects which made the aircraft so good were influenced by people like John Boid, not by computer technicians who have never flown in combat.

 

Furthermore I remember that when pilots were transitioning to newer aircraft in the 70s-80s, they were all proud of that. Now I've heard much complaint by USN aircrews and commanders about the F-18E. Not that the F-18E is a bad aircraft. But most of the people are probably convinced that they're losing more than what they're gaining. And that those money are kinda wasted because they could have been used to upgrade what they had. That's not a good feeling.

 

If you don't believe me, watch the latest Fighter Fling videos. They're all F-14 pilots, not forum writers like me...

[Starlight]

Young academics always look at the details and fail to see the essence. Thats' why current spreadsheet boys misguidedly think that the Tomcat's range, reach and speed where just tactical requirements of the day. Projecting this on today's tactical requirements, they came up with a misfire like the Superbug.

 

I think EVERY aircraft comes out from a tactical requirement. A tactical requirement usually generates an RFP (request for proposal) usually followed by some projects and a competition. The winner wins the production contract.

 

One of the biggest problem in today's aviation is that from the RFP to the first operational squadron can pass some decades. Just an example: the Ef-2000 Typhoon, is the cousin of UK's EAP, which is the cousin of UK's ACA (agile combat aircraft). The first ACA prototype (or full scale mock-up) was built in the early 80s. The Eurofighter, AFAIK, has yet to become fully operational in any airforce. 20 years have passed.

In 20 years the geopolitical situation has changed very much. The USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact and the Iron curtain collapsed too.

Now there aren't really clear threats, so nobody can say if the Typhoons entering service today are really adequate to the needs.

 

I live in Italy and the situation is really an exemplification of this problem. We had an obsolete air defence system throughout the Cold War. Instead of buying new hardware we upgraded to death our Starfighters, bought in 1960. If war started in the 80s a squadron of Warsaw Pact gliders could have easily gained air superiority over Italy.

After 40 years the Starfighters were retired, and Tornadoes and F-16s were bought as gap-fillers until the arrival of the Typhoon.

Now we have the Typhoon and the F-16, but one of the primary tasks our airforce is called to carry out today is scrambling to intercept possible terrorist aircraft. Which is the only thing the Starfighter was really good to do!!!!! Being a rocket with the wings, the Starfighter could be a perfect scrambler, with excellent speed and climbing qualities. no need to dogfight or to supercruise. just advance the throttle to Mach 2 and reach an aircraft. We have had it for 40 years, being useless for about 20 years, and when we scrapped it we found we needed it. Nobody says that the Typhoon is a bad aircraft. It's wonderful. But maybe it doesn't fullfill today's requirements.

 

This story tells that planning a modern aircraft today is really hard because it takes a lot of time and a huge amount of money. After you spent some years in research and you put tons of money into a project, you can't scrap it just because tactical requirements have changed. You're probably gonna modify the project to tailor it to the new situation... But you're not likely to have the aircraft you'd need for your current tactical requirement!

[D-Scythe]

because of poor RoE. because early Phantoms were without a gun. Because early missiles were even less efficient than they are now. And because crews were not trained for that kinda combat (mostly were trained for nuclear bombing, long range bomber intercept)

The Phantom was a good aircraft for its time. It had drawbacks, but with the same aircraft the crews performed well when they knew how to employ it.

 

No, it's because the MiG-17 was much more manueverable ;) Either way, it still proves my point - the faster, higher flying fighter doesn't always win. What's the F-15 vs. MiG-25 score again? Oh yeah, 5 to zip.

 

They are completely different aircraft. The Hornet performs better at knife range. At slow speeds some say it performs even better than the F-16.

 

People aren't going to take you seriously if you don't know that the F/A-18 is much more maneuverable at low speeds than the F-16. This is a well known fact.

 

But after 400 knots, AFAIK, the Hornet is very slow to accelerate. Instead the Tomcat boasts a powerful acceleration at all regimes...

 

Which I agree with, and stated explicitly, so what's the problem here?

 

..is quite maneuvrable at low speeds but early versions suffered severe engine problems. They couldn't sustain any turning fight with good opponents.

The F-14D is a new breed of 'Cat, and demonstrated it has good chances to win against all -teen fighters.

 

A good pilot in any plane will have a "good" chance to "win" against the teen fighters. This point is moot.

 

The combat record of the Gulf War was totally influenced by the tactical situation. AWACS were vectoring mainly F-15 to air targets, that's why they were the only aircraft to achieve kills.

 

Gimme a break. AWACs were only vectoring F-15s? The F-14 had plenty of chances to engage Iraqi fighters - it's just that they had to go SST to ID their target with IRST and that made the Iraqis flee like mad. That's the F-14's problem, not AWACs. I doubt an AWACs can keep an F-14 from engaging if it tried - its pretty hard to keep it 100 miles away from all enemy fighters so that it doesn't engage with Phoenixes.

 

Your record is further wrong, because the Hornet got shot down too... not only, but the Hornet was the first aircraft to fall in the Iraqi skies. It's still unknown what shot it down. Some sources claimed an SAM, some a Mig-25 kill. The pilot was never rescued, not even found.

 

Yeah, I forgot about him. Still, the F/A-18 has two kills to the Tomcat's one.

 

The Tomcats did extremely dangerous missions too in the Gulf War, because they flew TARPS missions alone, while the Hornets went in always with Prowler escort.

 

They were hardly alone. And what kind of TARPs missions did they perform? BDA mostly? SCUD hunting? Scouting Iraqi troop movements in Kuwait? Those are hardly threatening. BDA everything is killed already, SCUD hunting is mostly desert and Iraqi troops only have MANPADs and AAA.

 

If you compare the F-14D and the F-18E I'm not sure the latter has the edge. It's a bit more maneuvrable, but it's MUCH slower, and more than that, it simply can't keep a high speed in a real mission.

 

You have proof that an F/A-18 cruises at a significantly lower speed than the Tomcat? Show it.

 

It doesn't have supercruise, instead Hornets are usually thirsty aircraft.

 

Right, I forgot the F-14s have supercruise. My bad...

 

If they want a decent range they must slow down. If they cruise fast, the range is very very short. Comparing the F-18E to the F-14A wouldn't make sense!

 

What you said doesn't make sense. Flying slower does not necessarily translate to longer legs - all aircraft have an optimum speed they should keep up for long range. Altitude is more important.

 

First, the replacement of the F-14 is the F-18E, not the F-35.

 

Oh right, I didn't see the big sign that said "Only the Super Hornet can perform missions the Tomcat did" painted on the F/A-18E. My bad again.

 

Second, the F-35 is still on trials. It can supercruise ok, but with how much payload? 2 amraams in an internal bay? Hang a couple of bombs before comparing to aircraft in service. A clean aircraft is useful only in airshows.

 

Bombs don't hang from a F-35 because it can carry them internally. External carriage is only an option.

 

Well, because a project has been approved by USN or Pentagon, it doesn't mean it's the best (A-12 Avenger is THE example). Furthermore it seems that recently politicians have been much more influenced by industrial lobbies than from military personnel. In the past it wasn't like that, so we had great fighters, like F-14, F-15, F-16. Milestones in fighter aircraft technology.

 

And the F-22A isn't a milestone in fighter tech?

 

Furthermore I remember that when pilots were transitioning to newer aircraft in the 70s-80s, they were all proud of that. Now I've heard much complaint by USN aircrews and commanders about the F-18E. Not that the F-18E is a bad aircraft. But most of the people are probably convinced that they're losing more than what they're gaining. And that those money are kinda wasted because they could have been used to upgrade what they had. That's not a good feeling.

 

What's a worse feeling is trying to convince Congress to upgrade a fleet of old fleet defenders using hundreds of millions of dollars to do something an aircraft ALREADY in service can do.

[Weta43]

D-Scythe,

I think Starlight’s point was that if they’d intended to spend the money upgrading the F14 from the start the Super Hornet would never have been developed. Yes it would be a waste of money to both upgrade the Hornet/ develop the Super Hornet & upgrade the F14, but he’s not suggesting that.

 

You – & I agree with you – say that the Superbug has an advantage over the F14 BVR because of it’s superior avionics. I think Starlight’s point of view is that if they’d taken the F14 & upgraded it’s avionics to that standard INSTEAD of spending the money on the F-18E they’d have something with the F-18E’s BVR capabilities, but faster (regardless of whether they “cruise” faster, they’re faster in a hurry), better load & with longer range.

 

The F22 is obviously a milestone fighter. Whether or not present world conditions make it the best way to spend the money the US will spend rolling it out is debatable. Decisions – even those pushed by the forces not politicians can often be influenced by prejudice – look how the air force kept pushing to get rid of the Hog, but it’s a very capable plane giving good service in an indispensable role. Where would the US be if the air force had had it’s way there?

 

Regarding the missions given to the 2 planes over Iraq (which will inevitably impact on their kills) Don’t I remember reading something on these forums about the F14 being kept out of the way out of fear of it being taken out by friendlys – something about trouble with IFF ing it?

 

Yes the F-35 bombs/missiles hang internally, but there’s only 2 bays with 2 pylons in each in total, so you won’t be hauling a whole lot in there.

[D-Scythe]

Yes the F-35 bombs/missiles hang internally, but there’s only 2 bays with 2 pylons in each in total, so you won’t be hauling a whole lot in there.

 

I agree with everything you said except this point. The F-35 can carry at least two AAMs and two 2000 lb class bombs in its internal bays for the USAF and USN version and two AAMs and two 500 lb class bombs in the USMC version, all internally. I may be wrong, but I know for a fact that the F-35 can haul around a combination of AAMs and bombs.

 

Check out this site: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

 

 

BTW, for anyone that's interested, the F135 engine for the JSF is rated at 43 000 lb of thrust. I'm guessing that it'll be able to supercruise even though it was not designed for it, like the Eurofighter. It'll still have shorter legs than an F-14, but it should be at least equal to, but probably better than, the Tomcat or the Hornet in all aspects of performance relative to air combat.

[Raploc]

How about it isn't being used? :)

 

But note I didn't say 'failed'.

 

Ok where can I find that it isn't being used then? Mmm now I'm asking you to prove a negative:rolleyes: Let me refrase it, is there information on the test with the hawk and the conclusion that this setup did'nt work. I find that slapping a SAM to a plane is a very strange idea. I would like to know more about it.

[MBot]

Ok where can I find that it isn't being used then? Mmm now I'm asking you to prove a negative:rolleyes: Let me refrase it, is there information on the test with the hawk and the conclusion that this setup did'nt work. I find that slapping a SAM to a plane is a very strange idea. I would like to know more about it.

 

The tests were conducted in 1986 under to name "Project Sky Hawk". Four airframes were involved into the testings wich were coducted at Estafan AB if I remember correctly.

The project was a result of depleting stocks of the AIM-54A and problems in aquiring spares to maintain the AIM-54s. The Hawk SAM was the only missle that wich could be aquired on the arms marked in large numbers ( trough Israel, Greece and South Korea ) and that could achieve the design goals. To adapt the Hawk on the Tomcat three IDF/AF technicans traveled to Iran wich had expieriances with a similar project in the 1970s in Israel ( the adaption of Standart ARMs as AAM to counter MiG-25 ).

Several Hawks were test fired with two reported in combat, altough no kills were achieved. There were severe difficulty with the reliability of the datalink between the AWG-9 and the Hawk. Further details about the results of the testings remain unknown. After the supply problems for AIM-54A missiles and spares could be solved, project Sky Hawk was discontinued. The Hawk remains in the inventory of the iranian F-14A, altough not operationaly used. Also a number of Hawk AAMs were rebuilt with M117 bomb warheads as A-G missles.

[Prophet_169th]

I agree with everything you said except this point. The F-35 can carry at least two AAMs and two 2000 lb class bombs in its internal bays for the USAF and USN version and two AAMs and two 500 lb class bombs in the USMC version, all internally. I may be wrong, but I know for a fact that the F-35 can haul around a combination of AAMs and bombs.

 

Check out this site: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

 

 

BTW, for anyone that's interested, the F135 engine for the JSF is rated at 43 000 lb of thrust. I'm guessing that it'll be able to supercruise even though it was not designed for it, like the Eurofighter. It'll still have shorter legs than an F-14, but it should be at least equal to, but probably better than, the Tomcat or the Hornet in all aspects of performance relative to air combat.

 

I think you mis-read him on the internal bay. He said 2 bays, with 2 pylons each = 4.

[Cobra360]

The F-35B USMC is limited to 1000lbs bombs internal, not 500lbs. And there has recently been talk that the F-35A may be canceled and instead the F-35C will be modified to a landbased only version for the USAF, while remaining the same as it has been for the USN. The F-35C is less agile and has a lower G limit than the F-35A but the C has more range.

 

I'm not sure how true the report that the A will be cancelled in favour of a land-based C version is.

[Pilotasso]

The F-35B USMC is limited to 1000lbs bombs internal, not 500lbs. And there has recently been talk that the F-35A may be canceled and instead the F-35C will be modified to a landbased only version for the USAF, while remaining the same as it has been for the USN. The F-35C is less agile and has a lower G limit than the F-35A but the C has more range.

 

I'm not sure how true the report that the A will be cancelled in favour of a land-based C version is.

 

I think Logic contradicts that "news". The F-35A is the cheapest of all options. If it is cancelled The airforce will get to buy the more expensive F-35C. Parts commonality is high with the F-35A so I dont see why would they cancel it before all others. Also the F-35A is going to be the most exported version and all the countries participating in the program will be upset by its cancelation and be forced to spend much more than anticipated.

 

My country is looking at the F-35A with interest. If we ever replace our F-16's thats going to be the one. If its cancelled we will look elsewere or be persuated do disband the whole fighter force alltogether.

[britgliderpilot]

I think Logic contradicts that "news". The F-35A is the cheapest of all options. If it is cancelled The airforce will get to buy the more expensive F-35C. Parts commonality is high with the F-35A so I dont see why would they cancel it before all others. Also the F-35A is going to be the most exported version and all the countries participating in the program will be upset by its cancelation and be forced to spend much more than anticipated.

 

My country is looking at the F-35A with interest. If we ever replace our F-16's thats going to be the one. If its cancelled we will look elsewere or be persuated do disband the whole fighter force alltogether.

 

At the moment, the JSF project seems to be under threat in general - the word is that over here we're getting fed up to the back teeth with US reluctance to give us the technology and control for a fighter we've put a hell of a lot of money into.

 

The amount of stuff that BAE and Rolls are doing for all variants of the F-35 is mindboggling - but certain political forces appear to be actively trying to stop us getting access to the technology we'd need to maintain and service our own JSFs.

 

Just to put that into perspective, we've put somewhere in excess of £2 billion into the JSF, we're the only tier one partner, and the JSF could not fly without the stuff the UK is supplying.

It's not like we're about to stop being friendly with the US, either.

 

 

Could play either way - I think the JSF is an exceptional aircraft, and we NEED a Harrier replacement.

 

However, us pulling out would remove the main sales target for the F-35B, so you can guess what'd happen to that.

It'd be a colossal waste of money for all concerned . . . . but it's a possibility.

[Cobra360]

A Navy Typhoon and buliding the two new RN carries with STOBAR equipment would have been a better option IMO. Instead of going with updated versions of the same type of carriers and F-35Bs.

 

The Rafale M seems to be going well for France, even though they currently only have 10 Rafale M F1s. IMO France will have better force projection ability with it's two new carries and 2 Rafale M F3 airwings than the RN will with it's two new carriers and 2 F-35B airwings.

 

But at the end of the day its all about money and politics.

[britgliderpilot]

A Navy Typhoon and buliding the two new RN carries with STOBAR equipment would have been a better option IMO. Instead of going with updated versions of the same type of carriers and F-35Bs.

 

The Rafale M seems to be going well for France, even though they currently only have 10 Rafale M F1s. IMO France will have better force projection ability with it's two new carries and 2 Rafale M F3 airwings than the RN will with it's two new carriers and 2 F-35B airwings.

 

But at the end of the day its all about money and politics.

 

Oh, it's very much about money and politics ;)

 

Rafale and Typhoon were once upon a time the same program - the French threw their toys out of the pram upon being told that no, they couldn't be the captain of the team on this one. One of the design decisions they wanted was, just as it happens, carrier capability . . . . .

 

From that point on, the Typhoon was designed as a land-based aircraft. Converting it isn't impossible, but it would be difficult and it would be unbelievably expensive.

 

 

Likewise the ships - building a full-size carrier would require a massive additional investment. It would also most likely have to be nuclear-powered, which would pose further political and research problems.

At some point, capability has to give way to "look, we just don't want to pay that much for it".

 

 

Also bear in mind that the Typhoon was originally designed as an A2A fighter - the RN's strategy for their aircraft has been strike-only for some time now . . . ever since they started thinking about retiring the Sea Harrier.

 

 

Maybe a carrier-based Typhoon would have been more capable in some respects (although not in low-observability terms), but it would have been, even from the beginning, massively expensive.

 

At this stage of the game, with £2 billion sunk into the JSF and the new carriers under construction, to start from scratch . . . . . *shudder*.

[Starlight]

No, it's because the MiG-17 was much more manueverable ;) Either way, it still proves my point - the faster, higher flying fighter doesn't always win. What's the F-15 vs. MiG-25 score again? Oh yeah, 5 to zip.

The Mig-17 is a real dogfighter, but each aircraft has its own characteristics.

Like Bill Gunston sez in "Modern Air Combat [1983]".... "There is no 'best fighter'. Tornado ADV cannot match the F-16 in a dogfight, but the F-16 cannot fly the Tornado's 4 1/2-hour patrols with stand-off kill power".

And, same book, Mike Spick says in the Tactics: "Never fight the way your opponent fights"....

 

The F-4 surely wasn't a pure dogfighter. The problem was that Phantom crews were NOT trained for air combat. They relied too much on missiles. You can't fight a true dogfighter with a heavy aircraft. however the lowest kill ratio in vietnam was 2:1 or 3:1. Soon after Aggressor training the odds came back to more than 10:1.

 

IMHO the Tomcat is one of the greates fighters built because (at least the -D version) has a great flexibility. This comes from the swing-wing geometry, which adds a lot of weight to the aircraft, but has great tactical benefits. Low speed maneuvrabiliy, good acceleration and so on...

The Tomcat was crippled by its poor early engines. If the Eagle or the Falcon were equipped with the -412A they would have been much less capable.

 

One more note... I've seen videos of Tomcats flying at high speed a few feet above the ground... I'm not sure Strike Eagles could do that so easily, their low wing loading would make the ride not really comfortable.

 

People aren't going to take you seriously if you don't know that the F/A-18 is much more maneuverable at low speeds than the F-16. This is a well known fact.

"There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet"

said by a USN pilot who flew both F-16 and F-18, although it's quite biased towards the Hornet.

 

http://www.intellisearchnow.com/pwrpub_view.scml?ppa=6prkn%5EZeflnipvWSec%7D38%7DbfehYm

 

the same pilots says about the F-18 "Speed is nice to have, and I wish the Hornet had more"... :)

 

Anyway they're both good aircraft at low speed, F-16 has more SEP and can accelerate faster, the Hornet is probably easier to handle at low speeds and high AOA.

 

A good pilot in any plane will have a "good" chance to "win" against the teen fighters. This point is moot.

I agree. The pilot usually makes the difference

 

Gimme a break. AWACs were only vectoring F-15s? The F-14 had plenty of chances to engage Iraqi fighters - it's just that they had to go SST to ID their target with IRST and that made the Iraqis flee like mad. That's the F-14's problem, not AWACs. I doubt an AWACs can keep an F-14 from engaging if it tried - its pretty hard to keep it 100 miles away from all enemy fighters so that it doesn't engage with Phoenixes.

 

There were verbal skirmishes between USN and USAF for target assignment in the Gulf War. I once read about an F-16 pilot who said he had an F-14 roll in on him because USN crews were frustrated, since all the targets were given to Eagles. The Eagles flew more CAPs than Tomcats, and yes, the AWACS usually vectored Eagles.

 

Yeah, I forgot about him. Still, the F/A-18 has two kills to the Tomcat's one.

Two Mig-21s credited F-18C of VFA-81, shot down enroute to their target. AIM-7 kills at short range (I have the video). Nothing to say here, It's a very good demonstration of multirole capability.

 

They were hardly alone. And what kind of TARPs missions did they perform? BDA mostly? SCUD hunting? Scouting Iraqi troop movements in Kuwait? Those are hardly threatening. BDA everything is killed already, SCUD hunting is mostly desert and Iraqi troops only have MANPADs and AAA.

hehe :D If you were sure you had killed everything, BDA wouldn't be needed ;)

And if you attacked a site, that doesn't mean that 10 miles away there isn't a SAM which stood silent the day before ;)

TARPS missions were dangerous. They were flown over Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and all times F-14 drew a lot of SAMs.

 

You have proof that an F/A-18 cruises at a significantly lower speed than the Tomcat? Show it.

What you said doesn't make sense. Flying slower does not necessarily translate to longer legs - all aircraft have an optimum speed they should keep up for long range. Altitude is more important.

 

No, they have very similar cruise speed, around 500 Knots. BUT, the F-14 is much more a fuel efficient aircraft (even if its engines are thirsty) because it has swing wings and can cruise for hours without AAR. The Hornet © can have fuel for as little as 30-40 minutes in the air (from "Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the F-18 Hornet").

 

Right, I forgot the F-14s have supercruise. My bad...

 

F-14A (D is even better) can cruise at about 550 knots, which is a good speed without A/B. I'm sure the F-22 and other newer generation fighters perform a lot better. They were designed 30 years after the Tomcat! ;)

 

Bombs don't hang from a F-35 because it can carry them internally. External carriage is only an option.

I just wanted to say "ok, in clean config the F-35 can have supercruise. What about fully loaded with fuel and weapons?"

 

And the F-22A isn't a milestone in fighter tech?

 

Yes it is. And this is probably why F-15 pilots don't complain about transitioning to the new fighter ;)

 

What's a worse feeling is trying to convince Congress to upgrade a fleet of old fleet defenders using hundreds of millions of dollars to do something an aircraft ALREADY in service can do.

 

The problem is that "The meteoric rise of this aircraft [f-18E/F] is unrivaled in the annals of naval aviation."

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/920505-cr.htm

 

Figures grew so high that a 1999 projection called for a "cost of $86 million per unit" for the F/A-18E/F. Do you know what you can do to today's F-14D with that money? Not only you can extend their life for 1,000,000 more flight hours, but you could also pack into the cockpit a full array of goods like refrigerator, xbox, sexy woman...

 

To end my part of our "Tomcat vs SuperHornet" discussion, if someone asked me "do you like the SuperHornet?"

I answer "yes, it's a wonderful and capable aircraft"

 

But if someone asks me "Do you think it was worth the money?"

I answer "no definitely. with that money you could have upgraded all the existing F-18C and F-14D fleet, and still you would have saved a lot of money"

 

And I believe I'm not the only one thinkin this way.... please look at "Fighter Fling" videos, you can see what REAL PILOTS think of the Superbug.

[britgliderpilot]

And I believe I'm not the only one thinkin this way.... please look at "Fighter Fling" videos, you can see what REAL PILOTS think of the Superbug.

 

What about REAL MAINTENANCE CREWS, and REAL POLITICIANS?

 

;)

 

 

Even if you upgraded the Tomcat, there are no more parts left for it - the tooling was destroyed.

 

Somewhere I've got a comparison of maintenance hours per flight hours, and IIRC the Tomcat is still around three times as many maintenance hours than the Super Airbrake . . . .

 

Phoenix is too old, and while AIM-120 is possible, the Tomcat carrying AMRAAMS seems a bit of a waste.

 

I love the Tomcat, but I still believe the financial and maintenance benefits of the Super Airbrake are very real.

[Cobra360]

The last numbers I seen for maintenance were in the region of 45-50 hours maintence per flight hour for the Tomcat vs 10-15 for the Super Slug.

 

The Tomcat would need a missile like the Meteor to be a viable military asset as a fleet air defender. But when all the worlds oil runs out we can all point, and blame the Super Airbrake sponsored be Texaco.

[tflash]

Let me try a last time from a philosophical angle, because on the facts there is little discussion I think: the SH is of course a good airplane with ever developping avionics.

 

You could try to build an aerodynamically superb, powerfull aircraft, built to fly. Youl'd come up with aircraft like the Eagle, Tomcat, Flanker. Wonderful designs that don't compromise but sublimate at first sight incompatible requirements. It's called engineering in the noble sense of the word.

 

During development you would see that the tactical requirements change: warfare is ever evolving and the original specs would be obsolete before the start. But then you discover that your superb design can be adapted to many new roles: Eagle -> Mudhen, Tomcat -> Bomcat Flanker -> Su-30. because you have potential.

 

Same with F-22A: developped as an air dominance fighter, now promoted as a core global strike component. It's a classic already.

 

Another approach is: you look at all kinds of new threats and you want a solution for all: you want the multirole fighter for the crammed space on your flightdesk. You listen to mechanics, bookkeepers, politicians ... and then the Boeing company comes with a solution: we fix a little the Hornet (to everyone's view a truly great aircraft and proven warrior), produce it with existing avionics and will put nice stuff like Aesa radar later on. You name it, the Hornet has it. It's the big bargain. OK, by muddling with the original design performance got a little blow but then who cares? Like always, the price with all options is a little higher than promised.

 

Then you end up with a Hornet facing competetion in the form of Su-30, Mig-29K, Rafale, Typhoon .... Is it more than just a match?

 

In ITS timeframe the SH will be the slowest flying around, for one thing.

[D-Scythe]

I think you mis-read him on the internal bay. He said 2 bays, with 2 pylons each = 4.

 

Yup, thanks for the correction :)

[Pilotasso]

The Tomcat would need a missile like the Meteor to be a viable military asset as a fleet air defender. But when all the worlds oil runs out we can all point, and blame the Super Airbrake sponsored be Texaco.

 

This in not entirely correct, Oil will never run out completely. before it does, it will first become economicaly unviable to market it.

It is possible to syntethize replacements but at much lower scale than the worlds entire needs. It could be possible that in the future we get alternative energies on everyday machinery and vehicles, but aircraft use so much energy to get airborne, theres simply no technology avaiable anytime soon capable of lifting them off the ground but fossile fuels or some sort of rocket sinthetic fuel or hydrogen.

[Cobra360]

This in not entirely correct, Oil will never run out completely. before it does, it will first become economicaly unviable to market it.

It is possible to syntethize replacements but at much lower scale than the worlds entire needs. It could be possible that in the future we get alternative energies on everyday machinery and vehicles, but aircraft use so much energy to get airborne, theres simply no technology avaiable anytime soon capable of lifting them off the ground but fossile fuels or some sort of rocket sinthetic fuel or hydrogen.

 

I was just a joke, a poor one at that. :D