f-14 replacement

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

DDX RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/17/2003 10:53:23 PM

F14 replacement f18e/f. f18e/f powered by 2 22,000lb ST engines max speed m1.8 and is armed with AMRAAM missle range 35km aprox. It will be going up against su27/30 and mig29, both more manuverable and some armed with the AA12 range 50km aprox. The f18e/f lacks the f14 speed max m2.4 and long range missles aim54 range 150km+. The F18e/f needs more powerful engines something in the 25,000lbST - 32,000lbST class possibly including 2D/3D TVC or supercruise and either the EADS BVRAAM range 80km+, AMRAAMER range probably double AMRAAM (70km?) or new LR A/A missles. These enhancements along with the planned AESA radar, Helmet mounted targeting system, aim9X, AFLIR will make it one of the most capable aircraft in the world. Far more capable than the Su27/30.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/19/2003 2:34:58 AM

To x-29/a-12. Lets start with the B-52. The B-52 achieved greatnes with the H model, which has the TF-33 or JT3D in civilian parlance - which is one of the great engines. I agree with your evaluation of the B-52 and the "bookkeepers" and precision weapons. The F-14 and the TF-30. I think the F-14 has been kept from its full potential by a bad engine. I don't think the F-14 is a great an aeroplane compared to the F-15 (boy will there be missiles coming after me). The F-15 is more versatile, has been involved in more fighting and never lost. The F-14 has prevailed because there hasn't been any serious opposition to CVBG of the US. To use the F-14 as a Bombcat is to use what is available - I'd hate to see it against a competent air defence. Even the S-2. The S-2F turboprop is definately also a good engine. so it doesn't count. The civilians : Well I attribute the growth of the airline industry to three factors: The P&W Twin Wasp: Connie and SuperConnie with intercontinental reach The P&W JT-3D: which made flying affordable The 3 great "big-fan" from GE, P&W and RR. They made flying economical. The engines must all be great or the fierce competition would have eliminated one or more from the market. Now if You had mentioned the Hawker Hunter I would have been in real trouble.

Quote Reply

HJ F-14 and F/A1-8E/F engines 12/21/2004 2:04:03 AM

Go back two posts where author refers to Tomcat as M2.4 fighter...in actuality the Tomcat was designed when speed was thought to be a primary attribute. not too many Phantoms flew around at Mach 2 as it turned out and the Tomcat was NATOPS limited to M1.8 and with a typical combat loadout couldn't get much past M1.2 anyway so don't get hypnotized by high Mach numbers. YOu just arc when you turn anyway (speed counts for SR-71s though but they're way up there and need to be fast). Super Hornet is a fine "platform" as designed.

Quote Reply

gixxxerking RE:F-14 and F/A1-8E/F engines 12/21/2004 3:27:44 AM

I love the Tomcat but I think the time has come to modernize Naval Air. The F/A-18 platform is an excellent choice and has more potential today. F-14s are likely(My Opinion) approaching the end of their service lives compared to F/A-18. The JSF is also a good idea. It will really help to have a common airframe when it comes to maintenance and logistics. The stealth features will also greatly add to the U.S. Navy. I love a hot plane like anyone else. But I believe outright performance is no longer as critical as it used to be. Tail Slides and Cobras are nice, but how exactly does that save you from a data-linked, low observable plane that can kill at 60km using all aspect off boresight missiles and maintain a 90%+ availability rate?

Quote Reply

HJ RE:F-14 and F/A-18E/F engines 12/21/2004 9:34:47 AM

The Tomcat has had a great run...how many front-line aircraft serve for 35 years??? The airframes are tired and require a lot of downtime compared to the Super Hornet. As to maneuverability, it still counts as not matter how stealthy you are, or how greta your dat-linked info is from any source, a variety of factors can result in "a merge" happening where high off-boesight weapons systems like AIM-9X or AA-11 with associated helmet cueing system really make the difference and it would be nice to be able to pull a lot of g, etc.

Quote Reply

gixxxerking RE:F-14 and F/A-18E/F engines 12/21/2004 2:22:41 PM

The reason why I am not as conscerned about manuverabilty is that modern AAM missiles can easily outmanuver any manned aircraft. Not to mention 9 G's is about the limit for most pilots. So as long as your fighter is in the 7.5-9g range. I think thats enough for manned aircraft. More important at this point is ability to escape detection and BVR engagements.

Quote Reply

HJ To engage or not to engage 12/21/2004 7:45:23 PM

Good points, but you may not have the option to avoid a "jousting" type encounter. Missiles are better than ever, but so are countermeasures and countertactics so equally equipped fighters flown by aviators with good skills and SA may end up staring at each other across the circle regardless of technology.

Quote Reply

gixxxerking RE:To engage or not to engage 12/21/2004 7:58:54 PM

In those rare cases it will be up to the skill of the individual pilots and aviators right?

Quote Reply

HJ RE:To engage or not to engage 12/21/2004 10:47:04 PM

Not so rare depending on the mission assigned to the fighters

Quote Reply

gixxxerking RE:To engage or not to engage 12/22/2004 12:06:58 AM

but the outcome is still based on skill and tactics correct?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT