Tomcat vs the Hornet

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Mark F RE:I disagree completely, - Mark F 1/18/2004 10:18:43 PM

I mostly just copied and pasted from a previous post anyway, and I'm a reasonable typist.

Quote Reply

JJFS RE:I disagree completely, JJFS 1/19/2004 4:49:01 AM

I guess the main problem that I have with the superhornet is not that the navy opted for it over the F-14. It's their willingness to sacrifice funds from the F-35 program. The cuts in navy/marine air power were handled all the wrong way in my opinion. Instead of cutting both programs, particularly the F-35, they should have just canceled the remainder of the superhornet purchases. At best, they should have bought just enough superhornets to ensure sufficient aircraft would be available until the F-35 program came online. But, it seems, at the very least they will end up with 460 superhornets. Four hundred and sixty planes that cannot stand up to Su-27/30s, Ef2000s, or Rafales. I see your point, however, about the F-18 being the better choice. I wasn't trying to imply that avionics were a secondary issue. Merely that an F-14E, or whatever designation would be given to a later model, could be outfitted with the same systems as the superhornet, while retaining greater range, speed, and payload. However, the navy will never spend what I would like it to spend. For my money, the best program is the one that draws the least funds away from the F-35. I'd have just bought more F-18cs, if anything.

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:I disagree completely, JJFS 1/19/2004 1:19:57 PM

Well the original purchase was intended for 1,000 airframes. The decline in procurement coincided with a decline in the number of deployable carriers (now at just 11) and Air Wings (10 IIRC) making the number of aircraft the SH was intended to replace smaller. Now last I checked we had no plans to go to war with NATO so the odds of air-to-air combat with Rafale's and Typhoons in anything other than computer games seems rather remote. When you check the TO&E's of nations around the world you find the "Sukhoi threat" more imagined than real as well. Given the timing and available funding what we have is probably more than sufficient. BTW More F-18C's would definately have been a non-starter. The additional range, payload, and bringback capability alone justify the Super Hornet.

Quote Reply

JJFS RE:I disagree completely, JJFS 1/19/2004 5:24:21 PM

"Now last I checked we had no plans to go to war with NATO so the odds of air-to-air combat with Rafale's and Typhoons in anything other than computer games seems rather remote." I've never been one to count on alliances to keep us out of wars. There could certainly be something to european anti-Americanism. However, if Euro-American tensions never come to a head in the entire rest of history (pretty doubtful), both the Eurofighter and Rafale are available for export. The way I see it, we have two options here, we can prepare for the best, or prepare for the worst. "When you check the TO&E's of nations around the world you find the "Sukhoi threat" more imagined than real as well. Given the timing and available funding what we have is probably more than sufficient." Counting on the status quo is a mistake. The chinese already have 200 Su-27/30s. At least two hundred more in the works. Even the most moderate observer would probably agree that the chances of China becoming entirely hostile to the United States are far from remote. "More F-18C's would definately have been a non-starter. The additional range, payload, and bringback capability alone justify the Super Hornet. " Why not just save funds and load five squadrons to each carrier instead of the current four? I don't think anything that keeps us from having an all F-35 carrier force by 2020 or so is really justified. The F-18e/f is just as slow, just as visible to radar, and almost as mediocre in air to air combat as the F-18c/d. Where is the sense in wasting a great deal of money on something that is, at best, an interim solution, when a permanent one is only a few years away?

Quote Reply

Sam RE:I disagree completely, JJFS 1/19/2004 7:37:01 PM

Have to disagree JJFS. "Counting on the status quo is a mistake. The chinese already have 200 Su-27/30s. At least two hundred more in the works." Well they have the parts for them at least. They did buy 36 one-seat Su-27SK and 12 two-seat Su-27UB from russa in 1992. By the end of 2000 Shenyang had not assembled any Su- 27SK fighters of the 200 permitted under the terms of the contract. So it ain't as bad as some make it out to be. The chinese are having maint and training problems. More complicated and expensive to operate than they are use to. The same goes for the SU-30s they have (70 something). Of the 15-20 J-11s, most have gone to replace lost 27s vice filling new squadrons. The number of losses up to 2000 has been somewhere around 17. As for e/f having the same radar profile, slower, worse a to a. Has same radar profile as F-16 from the front. Less than 14 or 18C E/F has 2 more weapon stations, is only .1mach slower (1.6 e/f va 1.7 c) can carry 4 thousand lbs more ord. According to the navy the Super Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less labor hours per flight hour. Load 5 squadrons insead of 4. Where you gonna put them and their gear. Plus your gonna starve my squid buddies in the chowline.

Quote Reply

JJFS RE:I disagree completely, JJFS 1/19/2004 8:44:35 PM

"Well they have the parts for them at least. They did buy 36 one-seat Su-27SK and 12 two-seat Su-27UB from russa in 1992. By the end of 2000 Shenyang had not assembled any Su- 27SK fighters of the 200 permitted under the terms of the contract. So it ain't as bad as some make it out to be. The chinese are having maint and training problems. More complicated and expensive to operate than they are use to. The same goes for the SU-30s they have (70 something). Of the 15-20 J-11s, most have gone to replace lost 27s vice filling new squadrons. The number of losses up to 2000 has been somewhere around 17." Yeah, but aircraft production generally doesn't occur on schedule. I think they'd produced about 14 Su-27s in china by 2000, but that most of them had to be sent back to Russia for retooling. Their apparent ineptitude, however, could just be a front. The history of asian nations, and the emphasis the Chinese military places on the element of surprise certainly point in this direction. As for e/f having the same radar profile, slower, worse a to a. Has same radar profile as F-16 from the front. Less than 14 or 18C E/F has 2 more weapon stations, is only .1mach slower (1.6 e/f va 1.7 c) can carry 4 thousand lbs more ord. I wasn't arguing that it was any worse than an F-14 or an F-16 against an Su-27. All three are outclassed. An F-35 is not. "Load 5 squadrons insead of 4. Where you gonna put them and their gear. " During the cold war, our carriers routinely operated with nearly sixty combat aircraft. They no longer do, because of cost reasons.

Quote Reply

Aardwolf RE:Curious then... 1/19/2004 10:41:41 PM

The F-18L would have been a metric ton lighter with added aerodynamic refinements and and would have had equivalent capabilities with higher flight performance. It would have been superior for land based use. It was never built because the F-18 was already entering production. The latter was considered good enough that no point was seen spending additional (if minimal) development money on yet another F-17 iteration. In the absence of the F-18 it would have had a chance and in any case it would have been a better match for export users. You also fail to mention the situation behind the development of the F-18 in the first place. It was concieved as a lightweight lower cost hi/lo mix counterpart to the F-14. It was a flawed concept as it was a retrograde step for carrier air wing capability; its larger long-ranged counterpart always would have had superior range-payload capability with no overall performacne disadvantage. The development money spent on the F-18 caused for all practical purposes the curtailment of the F-14 program by the end of the 1970s. Which meant that there was no real upgrade program after that--they still can't even carry AIM-120s as has been pointed out several times. Had that money been available for F-14 development the history of unfortunate timing and late, non cost-effective upgrade proposals might have not been a problem. Further development might have fixed many aerodynamic and engineering related problems, and done so far earlier. There were many opportuinities to do just that, here are a few: C. 1970--GE had completed preliminary development on an improved, 30,000lbs-st TF-30 variant (JTF10A-39) but it was cancelled along with further F-111 development. It was virtually a complete redesign; it could have substantially improved F-14 performance and reliability from the start had Grumman been given access to it. (Before that there was the cancelled Orenda Iroquios turbojet, but that's another story altogether.) C. 1972--the F-14, starting with initial production batches, could, like the F-4, have been completed able to carry and use the full range of air/ground ordnance available, as was originally mooted by the project team. This would have obviated the need for a new fighter/bomber project, let alone one of shorter range and smaller load, basically doing the same thing to the F-18 program that the F-18 has continually done to F-14 upgrade projects since its introduction. It also would have provided support for significantrly increased F-14 production, lowering the unit cost--the opposite of what actually happened. Could have completely replaced F-4, A-7, A-4, and RA-5 from that point. C. 1984--F110 and LANTIRN introduction could have been initaited for all aircraft. C. 1990--series of aerodynamic and systems upgrades proposed and shown by Grumman could have given increased and significantly improved flight performance/handling, as well as low observable characteristics, all with little structural modification. All-moving canard foreplanes could potentially have been included. Continued development of AWG-9/APG-71 at this stage could have allowed the F-14 to replace the A-6, given an electronically steered multi-element phased array, air/surface modes including TFR, and additional TRAM-equivalent attack multisensors. C. 1992--AMRAAM CAPABILITY!!! C. 2002--35,000lbs/st engines with thrust-vectoring nozzles; F-100, F-110, or F119 variants all exist that would meet the standard.

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:Curious then... 1/21/2004 9:34:42 PM

So by being in favor of concentrating all development efforts on the F-14 and s---canning the Hornet, I take it you were in favor of dramatic reductions in the American carrier force by the late 1970's and early 1980's?

Quote Reply

hybrid RE:Curious then... 1/22/2004 4:09:15 AM

Look this is a dead horse argument (Much of these arguments for a better fighter/bomber were killed during the Clinton Administrations Bottom Up Review). Is there life still in the Tomcat? Yep you betcha. Does it need a replacement? Thats a bit unknown. The threat angle has been changing for the last 10-20 years and it hasn't even begun to stabilize yet. What the carrier groups are seeing these days is that the Navy fighters are called on more and more to do strike missions as well as provide CAP for both carrier group and sometimes well inland. Combine this from newer threats. We're not going to currently see swarms of fighters/bombers launching high speed large cruises missile swarms at an aircraft carrier. On the other hand the cruise missile is probably the biggest threat to a CBG (other than lurking subs I grant that). So what needs to be done? Look up the program called Miniature Air Launched Interceptor (MALI) by Northrop Grumman, this is a beginning to addressing the needs. Have weaponry and systems that can target both cruise missiles and aircraft out to extreme ranges and if necessary have the weaponry be able to loiter. Next miniaturize as much as possible so you can fit the said weaponry on different platforms. The F-35 was orginally conceptualized for this weapon, in fact the F-35 Naval Variant goes well beyond the F-18, doubling both the combat radius of the F/A-18 (significant increase in range vs the superhornet) and matching the payload of current superhornets. Is the JSF Naval Variant then the future? Possibly, an F-22 naval variant was planned and probably could have been better, but it too was shelved during the BUR. In essence what I'm getting at is that in any aircraft too much specialization may just kill the aircraft over time (this excludes craft like JSTARS, Hawkeyes and AWACS). For the Navy they need something right away thats flexible enough for them to change missions as needed and still keep enough aircraft in the air

Quote Reply

Dancing Johnny Future Wars 1/23/2004 12:17:32 AM

Though carrier aviation hasn't had much of a long distant role in Iraq, it did have one in Afganistan. And if we get into a conflict with North Korea or China the carriers is going to play a much bigger role and having long legged aircraft may be more important.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus CV's in Afghanistan - Dancing Johnny 1/23/2004 6:24:11 AM

The French were running de Gaulle in Afghanistan as well (Herakles), by all accounts they ran a pretty high tempo rate with bugger all down time.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:CV's in Afghanistan - Dancing Johnny 1/25/2004 10:55:54 AM

Can you expand on that or give me some links please. I would like to know more about the French contributuion in Afghanistan.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us