f-18 e/f for the fighter role?

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

nakito RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/14/2002 4:34:49 PM

F/A-18E/F is less maneuverable than the original F/A-18C/D-it been designed like the JSF as primarily a bomb-truck and secondarily a fighter. JSF has advantage in the BVR fight thanks to it being stealthy, dogfighting I couldn't tell you, as the navalized JSF is supposed to have vector-able thrust which does help its maneuverability. F/A-18F is a true fighter-bomber like the F-15E. As for the RIO/WSO question, now that the F-14s are ground-pounders, they both do the same things-put iron on target and manage the a/c's radar and other systems in the time before and after.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/14/2002 5:29:28 PM

soren, Re: F-18 vs JSF Because the JSF is being designed as an attack platform, which will have some secondary air to air capabilities, while the F-18 was designed with the opposite philosophy; primarily an air to air platform, with secondary air to ground capability. IOW, the various choices the engineers make regarding optimization of function are pointed in different directions for the respective aircraft. Every design represents a number of choices. You can't optimize for everything, simultaneously. You can design a platform to perform in a specific flight regime, optimally, but at the cost of performance at any other point in the flight envelope. IOW, either you design a plane which can do one or two things as well as the techology allows, but not especially well doing anything else, or to do everything pretty well, but no one thing as well as possible. The original idea for the F-18 was a cheaper, back-up for the F-14, primarily in the fighter role. It was adapted for air to ground operations, and wasn't bad at that. But, it was never intended, primarily, to be an attack plane. (That's what the A-6s and A-7s were for.) The JSF is being designed as an attack platform, from the get-go. BTW, the history is that planes tend to get heavier as they are modified. The F-16 A/B was the best dogfighter of it's era. By the time they brought out the C/Ds, they had hung so much more onto the airframe that performance in turn and burn was noticably degraded. I've been told that senior pilots still prefer the old models, and so do the Israelis, for pure fighter operations. You don't have as much for BVR engagments, but the plane will turn on a dime.

Quote Reply

Merc RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/15/2002 2:15:59 AM

> while the F-18 was designed with the opposite > philosophy; primarily an air to air platform, > with secondary air to ground capability. That might have been true with the original YF-17 entry into the Air Force LWF program, but the F/A-18 definitely was NOT designed from the outset as a pure fighter. The program that developed the Hornet was VFAX-- Navy Fighter/Attack Experimental. The F/A-18 was designed with attack in mind from the start, partly as an A-7 replacement. Both the JSF and the F/A-18E will handle fleet defense and air-to-air duties when both are fully phased into service. JSF will be the preferred platform for "first day of the war" strikes against heavily-defended targets though.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/15/2002 5:38:59 PM

As I clearly wrote, "primarily" (not, "solely") an air to air platform. Yes, the F-18 A/B was intended from the outset to have an attack role. But, a secondary role. The heavy lifting was to be done by the A-7s and A-6s. The F-18 was the backstop for the F-14, to mop up whatever got by or to fly CAP for the CBGs when the F-14s were running interference for a strike mission. But, when the engineers were making the choices of how to design the thing, the decisions tended to tilt towards air to air. That's why it LOOKS like a fighter, and nothing like the A-7s and A-6s. Nothing precludes multimission capabilities. The F-15 was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, but made a wonderful strike platform as the "E". When the Israeli Air Force waxed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, F-15s flew escort, but F-16s did the bombing. F-16s were designed as dogfighters. Nevertheless, there ARE compromises made when designs are drawn up, and when a plane is designed to optimize a specific role, it does lose some capabilities in other roles. Sometimes, there are workarounds which help optimize performance in more than one area. That's where swing-wings came in. JSF is looking like a very popular program before it ever flies. It looks like quite a few other countries really want into the program. If things don't totally collapse, it may be the most successful aircraft since the F-16. May even do better. But, it won't be bought as a pure fighter. It's an attack craft which can double as a fighter, if necessary. Anyone who has the money to pay for a pure fighter or who doesn't need a strike platform will buy the F-22 or Su-30. I'm not real happy with how the Navy has handled the fighter role. The F-18E/F doesn't represent all that much more capability than the C/Ds and the Navy is paying big money for them when it's desperately short of money for everything. They'd have done better to just hang onto the F-14s, buy the JSF in adequate numbers, and then address the fighter role. But, a bunch of senior people seem to really hate Grumman. Navy hasn't been real bright the last years about carrier aviation. They dumped the A-6s without replacements, too. I'm not real happy with the blithe assumption that the day of high threat attacks on CBGs is gone with the death of the USSR, either.

Quote Reply

Merc RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/15/2002 6:28:34 PM

> As I clearly wrote, "primarily" (not, > "solely") an air to air platform. > Yes, the F-18 A/B was intended from the > outset to have an attack role. But, a > secondary role. > The heavy lifting was to be done by the > A-7s and A-6s. I don't know about the F/A-18's attack role being "secondary." The VFAX program asked for a new plane to primarily replace Navy A-7s and Marine A-4s in the attack role. As a secondary role it is to replace the remaining Marine F-4s still in service back in 1978 in the fighter role. From the VFAX requirements one can almost say the F/A-18's fighter role was secondary to the attack role. :-P That's why the first CVWs to receive the F/A-18 got rid of their A-7s altogether-- One will not find F/A-18 and A-7 squadrons serving together on the same carrier deck. I agree that the current navy aircraft situation is not satisfactory. The F/A-18E is a poor replacement for the Tomcat. It has neither the legs nor the speed nor the long-range weapons of the Tomcat. Just about the only saving graces is that the 18E will be getting an AESA radar. Where to put the blame? One can point to many things like the A-12 debacle that almost bankrupted the Navy aircraft procurement program, or not getting onboard the ATF project to make it a "joint" program, or a number of other things. So it looks like the 18E is the best the Navy can do under the circumstances at least until JSF arrives.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 6/16/2002 9:41:00 PM

Again, I know that the 18 was sold as dual use platform. And, I know it really WAS attack capable from the get-go. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I still say it was primarily a fighter. And, again, the example of the F-15 and F-16 show that a good fighter can be turned into a good attack platform. But, again, LOOK at the airframe. It's a fighter design; not an attack design. Doesn't look like the various pure attack platforms. The bit about the A-7 may be less than it seems. By the same token, there aren't ANY A-6s left. That wasn't done because ANY F-18 variant can fill the same role. They can't. A few years back, I participated in a site frequented by a number of military aviation people. Pilots, a prominent writer, and someone who had been high in one of the major companies. Ran one of the major programs now flying. These people said, repeatedly, that a large part of the story behind the F-18 E/F and the decision to dump the F-14 had to do with the way some crucially placed senior navy people hated Grumman. I never found out exactly why, but there was agreement about the basic feelings. These are the same people who said that the F-18 project contracts were written with huge penalty clauses should the government try to cancel. And, the same folk seemed to feel that the F-14s could have been successfully upgraded for less money than the F-18E/F project. I think the Bombcats were a later project which more or less proved that the folks saying the planes were hopelessly dated were wrong. But, as late as they came, they couldn't affect the already made decisions.

Quote Reply

reserva120@hotmail.com RE:f-18 e/f for the fighter role? 7/22/2002 1:07:52 PM

Can anyone tell me WHY the navy just doesn't bring back the Sea-fury, it's a great plane and cheap and all you really need is training ..hell with the money saved flying these you could train really good and good training all you really need........i think that answer's it all

Quote Reply