Posted on 02/07/2005 4:23:52 PM PST by Former Military Chick
You keep what you have until you have something to replace it with. I do think that some of these techs have potential.
I'm an Army grunt and I can tell that this is the wrong thing to do. Refit the JFK is likely a cheaper option than scrap and rebuild.
I'm sure we will need it in the future.
Agree for the most part with much of what you say - Except the drone part - Nah, drones will never win the day (IMO). Or let me phrase that are many decades away from taking over. The "in-cockpit" human element is invaluable and extremely needed for at least several decades to come.
And while the new F-18F's (two-seaters) look to be a very capable strike / fighter aircraft....it just seems to me we should have went for an upgraded F-14D+ type version as the first line of Def / Interceptor for our Naval Fleets.
You said it, friend.
The F-14 requires about 33 man-hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. The F/A-18A requires about 20. The E/F model is around 16.
Moving from the F-14 to the F/A-18 basically cuts your maintenance requirements in half. And when you are trying to generate sorties, it's always better to have 12 functioning F/A-18s on the roof than 6 F-14s on the roof plus 6 in the barn up on jacks.
Also consider that manpower requirements revolve around the maintanence need. That means twice the manpower in the squadron Maintainence Department, plus all of the ship's support that goes to support them, chow, medical, racks, water, laundry, etc.
You could replace two F-14 squadrons with three Hornet squadrons and still come out ahead in most categories.
Agree with you on the F-14 maintenance issues - But an upgraded D version would have probably helped reduce that problem - And the "cheaper" claims revolving around the F-18's never fully happened. In that the differing variants of F-18's do not have the cross-over in parts like was suggested when the aircraft won out (over the F-14's).
The fact is the C,D and F variants do not have the cross-over of parts like was suggested would be the case. Thus not helping costs no where near as much as first thought would be the case.
Lastly, the F-18's simply can't take over their role for the F-14's with the same performance. Can the "get by" ....sure they can...(and they will)....However, that is a dangerous position to put ourselves in.
Are whole strategy for air-superiority is to have the best pilots matched with the best state-of-the-art aircraft that are flying (within reason via costs). We don't match via a numbers game - Therefore we need better planes and better pilots than our enemies.
By going with the F-18's and completely phasing out the F-14's we put our Naval fleets in a downgraded capacity.
One last note, I think we may see the F-23 be the real replacement over the F-14 (down the road here). It is a much better aircraft than the JSF (and the Navy would like to have the whole competitive aura Vs the Air Force take hold again).
What was the other thread discussing "giving" the Aussies an aircraft carrier or two? That is really out-of-the-box thinking - can we at least charge them Kelly Blue Book?
The excessive social spending commitments are coming home to roost.
The notion that needs to be done away with is that the number 12 is a magic number for carriers. We currently have 7 LHDs. Each is capable of carrying 20 Harrier fighters. The will also be capable of carrying a similar number of JSFs. The JSF began production last year, first planes off the assembly line is Q4 this year. The JSF will be 2nd only to the F-22 in Air to Air combat. It would easily smoke an F-14. The F-14 would never see it coming.
To a point all what you say makes sense - However, in actual combat the F-18 just doesn't hold up (hell the tweaked up F-14 "bobcats" are actually out-performing F-18's as strike fighters ...the exact thing the F-18 was designed for to begin with!).
The F-18 doesn't have anywhere near the LEGS of the F-14 - Not having legs can be disastrous in any number of ways - Especially when your role is coming off a carrier.
The speed issue is also killer for the F-18's - Their engines simply haven't performed like expected (or have, but the frame of the 18's has flaws). However, I have read the newer F models are supposed to have upgraded engines giving all sorts of new power.
As I stated in another post - The F-18 is a fine (darn good) strike aircraft - The newer F-18F version itself seems to be a hell of an aircraft.....but their is no doubt in terms of fleet air-defense the Navy has took a step back by going with the F-18 over the F-14 (while at the same time not having a viable new interceptor / fighter on the horizon).
Is the JSF an actual completely stealth fighter? I thought it just as a reduced radar sig -
The american version is. The Aussie on the other hand is not since we wont share all our specs.
No, it's a true stealth aircraft like the F-22. All ordinance is stored internally. In fact she is forced to us the AIM-9X because she (like the F-22) can't establish lock with the sidewinder because it's stored internally. It uses LOAL, lock on after launch. It actually allows you to shoot a sidewinder at an aircraft behind you. Another huge technical step. It's already in the USAF and in the fleet.
I found the other thread - you also want to keep on the American crew for free, I suppose - that $100 million savings is going to diminish quickly. Still, I like the out-of-the-box thinking - is there any serious discussion re: outfitting one (or more) of our allies with a carrier?
Do the Euros have LOAL missiles, if they dont I bet they will be angry since they wont be able to sell them to the huge JSF market.?
You make good points, but what the Navy needs is to build a replacement for the F-14, not keep dumping money and resources into a black hole.
This is nuts.
WOW! A $400 million saving in a 2 1/2 trillion budget. What a disgusting joke.
Defense is not where the waste is. The waste is in the $1 trillionvplus of social welfare crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.