F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet

Flight Journal Magazine ^ | February 2002 Issue | Bob Kress and RADM Gilchrist USN (Ret)

[Wm Bach]

A-7 Corsair II was mounted on a pedestal outside the now closed Navy Master Jet Base, Cecil Field, Florida.

I used to drive through those gates all the time in the 80's. I didn't realize they closed the base. Pity.

[Poohbah]

Figure on the Super Duper Tomcat running at about $150 million. Still wanna play?

NAVAIR can afford, at most, one and a half new aircraft programs on top of the Super Hornet and JSF. The Super 'Tron Hornet (EA-18, replacing the EA-6B) would be the "half." The most urgent requirement for NAVAIR is an S-3/C-2 replacement, and the E-2 is getting long in the tooth as well. We have not funded any such replacement--and if we don't start NOW, we're going to have a Navy that requires Air Force tanker support, Air Force AWACS support, and the Air Force is going to have to take up outer zone ASW patrols for the carrier AND perform the COD mission as well, just to keep NAVAIR "viable."

"Jointness" only goes so far--the Navy seems to be expecting everyone else to take up THEIR unique missions for them. Ain't gonna happen.

[Blueflag]

"we get the aircraft we can afford"

Actually, it comes down to understanding and justifying the mission/role and the need to prevail in that mission/role.

Arguments like the one you suggest got us aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo, the Devastator, and the Phantom with no cannon. Argument about mission/role -- winning the war, defeating the enemy got us aircraft like the P-51, the F4U (Corsair), the F-15E and the Tomcat.

Convince me the mission does not exist or is not worth winning, every time, and I'll buy the financial argument. It's not about exorbidance, it's about winning when you must.

[Incorrigible]

[Blueflag]

BTW, I'm with you all the way on the CSA. Multiple platforms are silly and the mission does not support the argument for multiple platforms in the future.

I agree completely with you on that one. ;-)

[NC_Libertarian]

The long-range A-6 bomber has gone forever

[jae471]

The YF-17 was never designed for the same role as an F-14. The F-14 was built to make things go boom. The YF-17 was built as a lighweight figther, which is why the USAF went with the more-versatile F-16.

Anyone know how the F/A-18 performs on SEAD?

[Al B.]

FYI

[Blueflag]

One last point -- If (or should we say when...) the JSF is a reality for carrier ops, then the F-14 can happily retire (with my consent, not that they need it).

[Poohbah]

The ALCM threat pretty much evaporated when the ex-Soviet space program collapsed. Those bombers were part of an integrated system that required satellite data to do long-range surveillance.

Question for you -- the flight profile of a Phoenix, as I understand it, is to fly very high above an approaching aircraft and plummet down on it at very high speed and frag with a wide lethality cone, whereas the Slammer is more hunt-you-and-kill-you, and can be physically evaded and defeated. Why do you think the Phoenix in actual use is easier (for a missile carrying platform)to evade?

Several problems: the radar is not LPI, so any fighter being attacked is going to have LOTS of warning. Second, it's a very large light-colored object against a dark background. Third, that high speed DOES limit its maneuverability. Fourth, and this is the really bad part, if the bogey manages to generate between 60 and 90 degrees of turn, his fighter will effectively disappear--because the bogey's Doppler will disappear. A bomber can't do it; a loaded fighter still can.

My objection to the Phoenix is in the dogfight role, not for splashing heavy bombers.

[Poohbah]

Quit whining at me--go whine at Congress. They say how much money we get.

[Poohbah]

The F/A-18 did most of the Navy SEAD work (teaming with the EA-6b). It definitely fired most of the HARMs from Desert Storm to Enduring Freedom.

[NC_Libertarian]

I think the A-6 is phat.

[gcraig]

"To complete the picture of mission distances, the S-3s would have to dash back to the CVs, hot-refuel, and meet the raid coming out of Afghanistan, which would be much in need of JP-4 cocktails."

Huh? Navy jets use JP5.

"The F-14D can pick up the A-6 role..."

NOTHING can pick up the role of the Intruder. I was a VA-165 Boomer in Desert Storm and our airplanes kicked serious @ss.

"Remember that there are - or there can be - 24 F-14Ds on a ship such as the John C. Stennis (CVN-71)."

The USS Roosevelt is CVN-71.

"Although the Navy has been working very hard to correct F/A-18E/F OPEVAL problems, it is worth summing them up: the production of the F/A-18E/F is significantly overweight with respect to its specifications (30,000 pounds empty weight). This is far in excess of what one would expect for a variant of an existing F/A-18 A, B, C, or D."

Huh? The F/A-18A, B, C, or D have a 1 to1 thrust to weight ratio. Each of the GE F404 Turbofan engines has a 16000 lb thrust rating, which places the jet at around 32,000 lbs. Your argument is slightly overstated. I do most vehemently agree with your position that unless we seriously alter our thinking about Naval Aviation post Clinton we will be in deep kimshi. I've worked on F/A-18 and A-6 aircraft as an electrician and avionics tech in the USNavy and have a thing for both airplanes. Thanks for the great article!

[Carry_Okie]

Great article, written by guys who seem to have their priorities straight: winning wars and saving money.

I see yet another argument for the approach they recommend. We are entering an age when smart drones could be part of the air attack mix. The longer range fighter/bomber could then act as a forward control platform utilizing its RPV assets as part of either the dogfight or to deliver ait-to-surface ordinance.

Why not rework and improve an existing platform under those circumstances? Good move.

[Poohbah]

Good sir, a collection of PowerPoint slides is NOT an aircraft development program. There is NO funding in place for such an effort.

[Poohbah]

The factory tooling is probably gone, unless Northrop Grumman was willing to pay for storing it (and given the extremely slim profit margins in the defense sector, they probably weren't).

[Ford Fairlane]

The factory tooling is probably gone, unless Northrop Grumman was willing to pay for storing it

I knew a guy who worked for a sub contractor in Indy at least as late as 1995. They made all the heat exchangers for the F-14. At that time all tooling for the F-14 was to be kept in storage for future use if not currently being used in production. This applied to all production equipment for the aircraft. If the sub wouldnt store it, Northrop would buy it.