f-18 replaces f-14, i still am shocked over this old news

[rebellious]

the f-14. 0.4 mach faster. more payload. has LANTIRN pods. bigger combat radius. can drop bombs just like the f-18. sure the cockpit and technology is not quite as good but overall it is a superior plane. the navy doesnt have a long range plane, specialised interceptor and the aim-54 phoenix, how are they gonna replace that. sure the maintainance cost was high and the time taken for it but the navy could have accepted gruman's proposal for the several new f-14 versions offered that didnt require so much attention.

heres are REALLY good link to this topic Two experts say the Super Hornet isn't so super By Bob Kress and Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

i want to know ur opinions. why did they put them in the junkyard, shoudve given them for the new indian aircraft carriers for a cheap price
lol joking

ARGH how do u delete a double post?!! so sorry mods

 

[Aussie Digger]

The reason the Tomcat is being retired is not due to capability. It is due to supportability (much like the RAAF's F-111). The Hornet requires between 10-15 manhours of maintenance per flying hour. The Tomcat requires around 60...

No matter how capable, if an aircraft is parked on the ground 6x as much as other more modern jets, it's not exactly a bargain.

Tomcat has Lantirn you say? SH has ATFLIR, a 3rd gen (and NEWER) targetting pod. The SH will take on the Tomcat's role. AIM-54 Phoenix has been retired for years now anyway. Tomcat has been carrying AIM-7 and AIM-9 for the last few years in it's A2A role.

AMRAAM was never integrated on it, to the point of having an operational capability, SH will thus be more capable than Tomcat was, particularly over the last few years.

SH is not the aircraft that Tomcat was. It is an incremental improvement over the legacy Hornet model, that is continuing it's improvement with the recent Block II enhancement adding AESA radar and a HMS, amongst other things. A planned Block III enhancement, will add considerably to SH's capability, particularly with largely increased thrust and stealth performance.

On top of this the USN, will start to replace it's legacy Hornet's with the much more capable F-35C from 2012.

A dual force of Block II/III SH's and F-35C's, will provide far greater capability than persisting with "old tech" Tomcat's...

 

[rebellious]

ok but why doesnt the hornet have a larger range and more power. it cant reach mach2 and it cant fly deep into enemy territory because of its low range. still that article by that rear admiral had some good points about how the tomcat is superior in a few areas. but i will go with you, the bird was getting old. they still could have accepted the new versions proposed by grumman. ><

 

[Big-E]

I just wish they kept the Tom-Cats till the JSF came in. I think it was a waste of money to buy so many SuperHornets when they could have put that money to more JSF procurement.

 

[Magoo]

ok but why doesnt the hornet have a larger range and more power. it cant reach mach2 and it cant fly deep into enemy territory because of its low range. still that article by that rear admiral had some good points about how the tomcat is superior in a few areas. but i will go with you, the bird was getting old. they still could have accepted the new versions proposed by grumman. ><

If it had have been a requirement by the USN for the aircraft to have more range and power and a Mch 2 top speed, then they wouldn't have bought it!

The Super Hornet is far more than an interim aircraft between the F-14 and F-35C. Its AESA radar, datalinks, incredibly reliable (read MTBF) engines and systems, and bringback payload are big advances over the F-14, as is its radar cross section which is about 1/5 that of the F-14 in the head-on quadrant.

AD quoted man hours vs flying hours for the SH of about 1/4 that of the F-14...I've been told by a mate of mine who spent some time on the TR on the F-14's final cruise that it's more like 1/8!

People like the F-14 cos of its 'Top Gun' image, and because it's big and fast, but what's the use in having the world's most powerful air intercept radar and 28K lb thrust engines if you haven't got datalinks or BVR missiles? The SH by comparison is slower and pretty unglamorous, however it's comparitively cheap to acquire (US$56m) and run, it's manouverable, very reliable, and can switch from A2G to A2A at the flick of a switch and match it with just about anyone in either arena. There aint nothing else out there, in service and fully sorted, which can claim the same except maybe late build F-15Es! Not Eurofighter, not Rafale, not F-22, and certainly not F-14.

Magoo

 

[Sea Toby]

I have a friend who works for Boeing. He claims the Super Hornet is as good as a figher jets can be without the stealth technology. If Australia opted out of the JSF, the F-35, the Super Hornet would be another great buy. As the price of the JSF continues to climb, the Super Hornet looks better and better as time passes by.

The Super Hornet F/A-18F is slightly larger than the older Hornets F/A-18C/D, with a combat radius of 665 nautical miles rather than the older Hornet's 410 nautical miles. The Super Hornet carries more weapons, all of the new state of the art weapons.

 

[Big-E]

I have a friend who works for Boeing. He claims the Super Hornet is as good as a figher jets can be without the stealth technology. If Australia opted out of the JSF, the F-35, the Super Hornet would be another great buy. As the price of the JSF continues to climb, the Super Hornet looks better and better as time passes by.

The Super Hornet F/A-18F is slightly larger than the older Hornets F/A-18C/D, with a combat radius of 665 nautical miles rather than the older Hornet's 410 nautical miles. The Super Hornet carries more weapons, all of the new state of the art weapons.

With all due respect your friend at Boeing doesn't know WTF they are talking about. The Super Bug is a decent fighter but thrown into a dog-fight she is at a disadvantage. She might be a match at BVR for any platform but will get beat by an experienced SU-30 or MIG-29 pilot at close range. Sidewinders are at a disadvantage to the Aphid. The ability to launch it at 40% from forward by sight acquisition gives the Russian designs an advantage. She is slower than her Russian counterparts by a good margin, making the ability to outrun a missle lock all the more difficult. The fact that she isn't stealthy only compounds this problem... Are you sure your friend didn't say the best fighter/bomber??? This is where the Super Hornet is at its best. All the advantages you listed make her a great strike aircraft with a good BVR AA ability. But her formost mission is not air-superiority. Just as I stated with the USNs decision to acquire more SHs instead of leaving the F-14s to procure more F-35s was dumb, I believe the same goes for AU. The F-35 is stealth, anything less is obsolete. Why waste your money on yesterdays garbage?

 

[Magoo]

With all due respect your friend at Boeing doesn't know WTF they are talking about. The Super Bug is a decent fighter but thrown into a dog-fight she is at a disadvantage. She might be a match at BVR for any platform but will get beat by an experienced SU-30 or MIG-29 pilot at close range. Sidewinders are at a disadvantage to the Aphid. The ability to launch it at 40% from forward by sight acquisition gives the Russian designs an advantage. She is slower than her Russian counterparts by a good margin, making the ability to outrun a missle lock all the more difficult. The fact that she isn't stealthy only compounds this problem... Are you sure your friend didn't say the best fighter/bomber??? This is where the Super Hornet is at its best. All the advantages you listed make her a great strike aircraft with a good BVR AA ability. But her formost mission is not air-superiority. Just as I stated with the USNs decision to acquire more SHs instead of leaving the F-14s to procure more F-35s was dumb, I believe the same goes for AU. The F-35 is stealth, anything less is obsolete. Why waste your money on yesterdays garbage?

Well, SOMEONE doesn't know WTF they're talking about anyway, but I suspect it isn't Sea Toby's friend. I'd be very interested in seeing your sources...

You start by saying the Su-30 and MiG-29 are better at close range...on what authority? Have you flown the jet? Do you know someone who has flown it? And then you jump straight into an AA-11 vs AIM-9M debate which is totally irrelevant to the platform. If for some reason you want to talk missiles, let's talk AIM-120C-5 vs AA-10, or AIM-9X (from late this year) vs AA-11, or if the Aussies were to get the Super, ASRAAM vs AA-11. I know which way I'd go and it aint Russian!

Believe it or not, the Super Hornet has the lowest radar cross section of any 4th generation fighter, and this includes Eurofighter and Rafale, neither of which are in full operational service yet. Only the F-22 and F-117 are 'stealthier'. The APG-79's LPI, SAR and datalinks/comms functions are outstanding, and are only bettered by the F-22's APG-77. One only needs to read about the recent test JDAM drop the USN did at China Lake where a -79-equipped jet datalinked target co-ordinates to two older -73 fitted jets who then dropped four JDAMs on four targets - this means only one jet in a gorilla package of several jets needs to radiate...the rest can remain passive. As for manouverability, you only need to see Ricardo's airshow routine to see that the Super can turn inside even an F-16, especially in the vertical...AND with a decent load on board! I've had several USN pilots rave to me about the jet, with one describing it as an "ergonomic masterpiece".

Do you honestly think the USN, arguably home to the world's finest fighter pilots, would sign up for 400+ Super Hornets if they thought they were...

obsolete

???

The RAAF (and any other service) would be very well served by the Super Hornet, and if the JSF were to fall over for whatever reason, I'm sure we'd be first in line for Supers to replace our Hornets AND F-111s.

Unfortunately for the Super, much of its bad press has come about because it is the designated replacement for the F-14 which is a universally loved airplane. OK, so it doesn't do Mach 2+...either does an F-14 if it has ANY external stores/aux tanks, but whether you're doing Mach 1.8 or 2.4 is pretty academic really, you can only do it for a couple of minutes anyway, and you are not going to outrun any AAM!

Magoo

 

[ashkon]

heres are REALLY good link to this topic Two experts say the Super Hornet isn't so super By Bob Kress and Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

That flight journal article has been doing the rounds for quite some time now,it's a report full of lies and half truths and it's been debunked over and over again (just read the previous posts from AD and Magoo to give you an idea).
In one part Gilchrist claims that in one legacy bug v super bug air ex, the legacy hornets supposedly " outflew them, out gassed them " (the super bugs).
When Paul Gilchrist was asked where he got that info from, he replied that he heard it from a USMC F-18 pilot who heard it from a friend...so in reality there was ZERO evidence to prove that this actually happened.

 

[Magoo]

heres are REALLY good link to this topic Two experts say the Super Hornet isn't so super By Bob Kress and Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

That flight journal article has been doing the rounds for quite some time now,it's a report full of lies and half truths and it's been debunked over and over again (just read the previous posts from AD and Magoo to give you an idea).
In one part Gilchrist claims that in one legacy bug v super bug air ex, the legacy hornets supposedly " outflew them, out gassed them " (the super bugs).
When Paul Gilchrist was asked where he got that info from, he replied that he heard it from a USMC F-18 pilot who heard it from a friend...so in reality there was ZERO evidence to prove that this actually happened.

I remember seeing this article some time ago, and I believe it was written in late 2001 or early 2002, barely six months after the Super had entered service and was still going through the final stages of its OPEVAL. The first batch of Block I Supers which deployed aboard the Lincoln in late 01 did have their problems, and were not equipped with APG-79s. From about aircraft 120 when the Block II nose entered production and the APG-79 made its appearance, this has made a world of difference to the aircraft's BVR, strike and datalink capability as well as its maintenance man hours.

Note also that Kress was an aeronautical engineer for Grumman, so it's possible his view may be somewhat tainted!

Magoo

 

[Big-E]

Well, SOMEONE doesn't know WTF they're talking about anyway, but I suspect it isn't Sea Toby's friend. I'd be very interested in seeing your sources...

You start by saying the Su-30 and MiG-29 are better at close range...on what authority? Have you flown the jet? Do you know someone who has flown it? And then you jump straight into an AA-11 vs AIM-9M debate which is totally irrelevant to the platform. If for some reason you want to talk missiles, let's talk AIM-120C-5 vs AA-10, or AIM-9X (from late this year) vs AA-11, or if the Aussies were to get the Super, ASRAAM vs AA-11. I know which way I'd go and it aint Russian!

Believe it or not, the Super Hornet has the lowest radar cross section of any 4th generation fighter, and this includes Eurofighter and Rafale, neither of which are in full operational service yet. Only the F-22 and F-117 are 'stealthier'. The APG-79's LPI, SAR and datalinks/comms functions are outstanding, and are only bettered by the F-22's APG-77. One only needs to read about the recent test JDAM drop the USN did at China Lake where a -79-equipped jet datalinked target co-ordinates to two older -73 fitted jets who then dropped four JDAMs on four targets - this means only one het in a gorilla package of several jets needs to radiate...the rest can remain passive. As for manouverability, you only need to see Ricardo's airshow routine to see that the Super can turn inside even an F-16, especially in the vertical...with a decent load on board! I've had several USN pilots rave to me about the jet, with one describing it as an "ergonomic masterpiece".

Do you honestly think the USN, arguably home to the world's finest fighter pilots, would sign up for 400+ Super Hornets if they thought they were... ???

The RAAF (and any other service) would be very well served by the Super Hornet, and if the JSF were to fall over for whatever reason, I'm sure we'd be first in line for Supers to replace or Hornets AND F-111s.

Unfortunately for the Super, much of its bad press has come about because it is the designated rreplacement for the F-14 which is a universally loved airplane. OK, so it doesn't do Mach 2+...either does an F-14 if it has ANY external stores/aux tanks, but whether you're doing Mach 1.8 or 2.4 is pretty marginal, you can only do it for a couple of minutes anyway, and you are not going to outrun any AAM!

Magoo

Have I flown the Fs? no. Have I have flown in the Ds? yes. At SFTI I learned two things above all. 1) Do not get into a turning battle with a pissed off instructor flying a F-16 with simulated aphids. 2) Do not bother trying to outrun a MIG 29 with Adders, hit the deck and hope your countermeasures work. It is not impossible to get out of an AMRAAM lock if you know when its fired. Once the missle leaves the aircraft you immediatly throttle up, change course 90 degrees and altitude by 15k and get the hell out of the basket. I'm not sure if AU has the MC option but even if it does, a MIG 29 can still get out of range if it doesn't enage too close. If the MIG opens fire with a volley of Adders your in for a rough ride b/c they out-range your AMRAAMS, (although it would probably take all four to kill you). You say compare the AMRAAM to the Alamo but your missing the tactics, The aircraft also carry Adders, If they fire off their Adders and you survive the turn they still close the gap, when you turn to engage with your longer range AMRAAM they have already fired off the Alamo which is much more accurate than the Adder. If you survive this then your left with your sidewinder against the longer range aphid. Engaging with AMRAAM at this point is futile b/c the range is too close. You have to close range asap to sidewinder range or your toast. If you can do this you will probably get a kill with the AIM-9L and up.

You go into the bombing capabilities of the SHs, You won't get any arguments from me there mate! I am strickly speaking in the AA role. Speed matters in combat when your fighting medium-ranged missles with dual guidance. The difference b/w Mach 1.8 and 2.4 can mean life or death!

As for the radar sig, I don't think an F model versus a JSF will have much of a chance. It's like comparing a beach ball to a bumble bee. The survivabilty of the SHs are pretty good from what I hear, but you aren't going to be faced with one missle. The Russians know their reliability (or lack thereof) so they fire more than one in an arc to fill the basket.

I don't know b/w the two of us who have talked to more pilots about it. Of course they all love it compared to the C/Ds, why wouldn't they??? It has longer range, more payload, more survivability and is easier to fly. But the fact is it is still a fourth generation aircraft! It is a step backwards from where the USN needs to be with JSF procurement. The DoD is cutting back JSF to order 400 SuperHornets that will be obsolete once JSF makes her introduction. From all the pilots you talked to about how great a plane it is did you ever once ask them "would you rather fly JSF?" I doubt it, so it was a loaded question to begin with.

As far as what the DoD thinks is the best versus the pilots who have to fly them is another rant for another debate. I know you think I am just ranting b/c of the Tomcat's early retirement but that isn't the case. My thesis is acquire the aircraft that saves the most lives in aa hostile situation. If I have to go AA or AG I would rather be in the JSF than the SH. I care more about what brings our pilots home, not what saves the most money.

 

[Magoo]

Have I flown the Fs? no. Have I have flown in the Ds? yes. At SFTI I learned two things above all. 1) Do not get into a turning battle with a pissed off instructor flying a F-16 with simulated aphids. 2) Do not bother trying to outrun a MIG 29 with Adders, hit the deck and hope your countermeasures work. It is not impossible to get out of an AMRAAM lock if you know when its fired. Once the missle leaves the aircraft you immediatly throttle up, change course 90 degrees and altitude by 15k and get the hell out of the basket.

Otherwise known as the 'notch'? yep know about that. I haven't flown it for real but I have in F-111, Super Hornet and F-22 simulators, but I'll bow to your greater flying experience in this regard.

You say compare the AMRAAM to the Alamo but your missing the tactics, The aircraft also carry Adders, If they fire off their Adders and you survive the turn they still close the gap, when you turn to engage with your longer range AMRAAM they have already fired off the Alamo which is much more accurate than the Adder. If you survive this then your left with your sidewinder against the longer range aphid. Engaging with AMRAAM at this point is futile b/c the range is too close. You have to close range asap to sidewinder range or your toast. If you can do this you will probably get a kill with the AIM-9L and up.

Ahh, but we also carry 120+km range C-5 AMRAAMs and 40km+ ASRAAMs, The ASRAAM outranges the AIM-9M by a (non-class) factor of two, so i'd imagine it would outrange the AA-11 too? The ASRAAM is also all-aspect, and with JHMCS, can be fired 'over the shoulder' at up to 120 degrees off boresight. Can't do that with an AIM-9L/M.

As for the radar sig, I don't think an F model versus a JSF will have much of a chance. It's like comparing a beach ball to a bumble bee. The survivabilty of the SHs are pretty good from what I hear, but you aren't going to be faced with one missle. The Russians know their reliability (or lack thereof) so they fire more than one in an arc to fill the basket.

Yeah, but we're not talking about Super vs JSF in this thread, it's supposed to be Super vs F-14. I agree that F-35C will be far superior, but it's still three years away from first flight, and probably about 10 years away from going to sea!

I don't know b/w the two of us who have talked to more pilots about it. Of course they all love it compared to the C/Ds, why wouldn't they??? It has longer range, more payload, more survivability and is easier to fly. But the fact is it is still a fourth generation aircraft! It is a step backwards from where the USN needs to be with JSF procurement. The DoD is cutting back JSF to order 400 SuperHornets that will be obsolete once JSF makes her introduction. From all the pilots you talked to about how great a plane it is did you ever once ask them "would you rather fly JSF?" I doubt it, so it was a loaded question to begin with.

Again, the thread is about Super vs F-14, not Super vs 'classic'. I don't accept that the Super will be obsolete when the JSF enters service. Yes, it will be the second of a two-tiered force structure, but with its AESA radar and open architecture systems, it will be more than capable of slotting neatly into a networked battlespace with the JSF, AEW&C, MMA, UAVs, Aegis etc etc.

Magoo

 

[ashkon]

It is not impossible to get out of an AMRAAM lock if you know when its fired. Once the missle leaves the aircraft you immediatly throttle up, change course 90 degrees and altitude by 15k and get the hell out of the basket.

Good luck to you.

 

[Big-E]

Ahh, but we also carry 120+km range C-5 AMRAAMs and 40km+ ASRAAMs, The ASRAAM outranges the AIM-9M by a (non-class) factor of two, so i'd imagine it would outrange the AA-11 too? The ASRAAM is also all-aspect, and with JHMCS, can be fired 'over the shoulder' at up to 120 degrees off boresight. Can't do that with an AIM-9L/M.

Well I have never operated the longer range AMRAAM. But if you face off against the AA-10 Alamo-C 170km variant then you'll wish you could go Mach 2.4 after letting go of that AMRAAM!

Yeah, but we're not talking about Super vs JSF in this thread, it's supposed to be Super vs F-14. I agree that F-35C will be far superior, but it's still three years away from first flight, and probably about 10 years away from going to sea!



Again, the thread is about Super vs F-14, not Super vs 'classic'. I don't accept that the Super will be obsolete when the JSF enters service. Yes, it will be the second of a two-tiered force structure, but with its AESA radar and open architecture systems, it will be more than capable of slotting neatly into a networked battlespace with the JSF, AEW&C, MMA, UAVs, Aegis etc etc.

Magoo

Don't blame me, Sea Toby brought up JSF! I was talking about how Hornets could be defeated in combat and why I thought the F-14s were sacraficed for more SH purchases which must have something to do with this thread. As far as what AU buys, I just want your flyers to come home, just as I want to!

 

[Big-E]

Good luck to you.

If it has MC and your over rolling terrain you can drop behind a hill, these things aren't fool proof. It's all about the training and using what you have. Although if your over water your pretty much toast.

 

[Magoo]

Since your a mod and talked about it I figured it was open for debate.

Nup, not me. I'm not a mod nor would I want to be! (sorry gf & AD, but you can have THAT job! )

Anyway, at the end of the day, like I said, I think the JSF IS the way to go, but if JSF were to fall over, then the Super would be a fine second choice.

I think both aircraft are great, and I actually think we should get both as a two-tiered teaming, but I'm too tired and have too much work to do to go into depth as to why.

Magoo

 

[Big-E]

Nup, not me. I'm not a mod nor would I want to be! (sorry gf & AD, but you can have THAT job! )

Anyway, at the end of the day, like I said, I think the JSF IS the way to go, but if JSF were to fall over, then the Super would be a fine second choice.

I think both aircraft are great, and I actually think we should get both as a two-tiered teaming, but I'm too tired and have too much work to do to go into depth as to why.

Magoo

Your quick, I thought I deleted that:

No need for the in-depth, I imagine AU needs to replace something with the SH but you need the JSF to clear the way. Like you said multi-teared, I just hate the current state of the US carrier compliment at this time. No worries mate!

 

[Pursuit Curve]

With all due respect your friend at Boeing doesn't know WTF they are talking about. The Super Bug is a decent fighter but thrown into a dog-fight she is at a disadvantage. She might be a match at BVR for any platform but will get beat by an experienced SU-30 or MIG-29 pilot at close range. Sidewinders are at a disadvantage to the Aphid. The ability to launch it at 40% from forward by sight acquisition gives the Russian designs an advantage. She is slower than her Russian counterparts by a good margin, making the ability to outrun a missle lock all the more difficult. The fact that she isn't stealthy only compounds this problem... Are you sure your friend didn't say the best fighter/bomber??? This is where the Super Hornet is at its best. All the advantages you listed make her a great strike aircraft with a good BVR AA ability. But her formost mission is not air-superiority. Just as I stated with the USNs decision to acquire more SHs instead of leaving the F-14s to procure more F-35s was dumb, I believe the same goes for AU. The F-35 is stealth, anything less is obsolete. Why waste your money on yesterdays garbage?

BigE I too lament the passing of the tomcat, but hey, thats life in the budget world. One thing though, the AIM 9X coming online in the Fleet will give back the edge to the crews, its better than archer, and combined with the Helmet mounting cue, its a world beater.

The Tomcat was lamed right from the start when the Navy and the pentagon baulked at giving it a real good engine, and that didn't happen unitl it was almost half way to the bone yard, but lets be honest, the Super Bug has superior bring back capability over the tomcat, and the mission it was designed for, fleet air defense, has taken a back seat since the Soviet Union isn't the main advesary.

Mach 2 is sexy, but isn't needed anymore since the majority of strikes will be standoff, and any close support will be more than met by the super Bug. And whne did a F 14 ever use its max speed? Or for that matter, when has any fighter when loaded up with externals?

I raise my glass to a true cold warrior, the Tomcat. Long has she served, but I bet in 20 years we will be saying the same thing about the F 18.

 

[Big-E]

Mach 2 is sexy, but isn't needed anymore since the majority of strikes will be standoff, and any close support will be more than met by the super Bug. And whne did a F 14 ever use its max speed? Or for that matter, when has any fighter when loaded up with externals?

I have.

 

[ashkon]

I have.

And what was the outcome were you successful?