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

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

[hattend]

Bump for later when I have time to download the pictures.

[Blueflag]

1) I'm not whining at you, I'm disagreeing with you on a couple points. Pick better fights.

2) To dismiss the ALCM (or SlCM) threat as requiring a Russian satellite recon system is naive, considering the likely theatre of operations in Asia. There are many assets that can find out fleets, some in orbit, some sub-sea, others are humint. Can't go with you on the diminished threat of OTH launch of sea skimmers (from sub-sahara to Coral Sea). CAN agree with you that there aren't likely as many aerial platforms around to launch them.

3) Whether it's armed with the Phoenix or the Slammer, the F-14 is a better CAP asset than the F-18X. Having 'said' that, the Hornet driver a few posts up might disagree and call for a fly-off

4) If money is the issue, keep the F-14D, kill the Super Hornet, and over-fund the JSF.

5) All this is mute if the Super Hornet can carry out its mission and role in CAP and fleet defense.

6) I value your opinion on these threads. Don't go away mad, and don't presume I don't understand the financial aspects of competing/proposed/imaginary/specious NAVAIR programs in an increasingly 21st century e-war world.

[Blueflag]

First use of ACSI Red in DoD might just be to figure out what to do if the bad guys splice anthrax genes into e coli. DoD and the ususal suspects are already looking at a secure, 'private' network that makes I2 look like a piker, and a grid computing system that'll make your SAN bleed.

[pfflier]

The YF-17 was never designed for the same role as an F-14

Never said it was. It was designed, by Northrop as direct competition for the F-16 under Air Force flyoff directives...and came in second best.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

(EA-18, replacing the EA-6B)

The proposal is for developing the F/A-18G(Growler) which would replace the EA-6B. The F/A-18G would have the same limitations that the EF-111 Raven had and the only advantage would be speed. It would take three F/A-18G's to replicate the mission capabilities of one EA-6B. Also, preliminary cost analysis show that it would be cheaper to reopen the Prowler line than to introduce a new platform. 104 sets of new wings have been purchased so the entire Prowler fleet will be rewinged and the ADVCAP upgrade will keep the EA-6B's in the fleet for a long time to come.

Incidentally, Gillcrist is one sharp guy. He blows the fallacies about stealth technology out of the water in his article The Myth of Stealth

[Poohbah]

Uh, Smedley...there is an overriding concern, and that is that the Prowler cannot keep up with the strike birds--with the A-6 gone, EA-6B is a ball and chain on the strike package. Also, the EA-6B cannot handle itself in any air-to-air threat.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Keeping up with the strike package can be dealt with. Launching the Prowlers prior to the strike and coordinating their simultaneous arrival at the insertion point has been the standard protocol and most jamming is done in the standoff mode anyway. Despite some attempts that didn't get very far, the A-6 didn't have the ability to engage in air-to-air either and it proved to be the most effective, lethal strike platform in the history of Naval aviation. It should be noted that no plane has ever been lost when accompanied by an EA-6B for SEAD.

[Poohbah]

However, that means you have the high-value airframes out well ahead of the fighters...and if the bad guy gets wise, you now have the EA-6B in a dogfight mode.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Incorrect. Prudent mission tasking always dictates the launching of fighter cover for CAP with the Prowlers or rendezvous with fighters prior to arrival at the insertion point. If enroute the Prowler detects a threat emitter, it can be suppressed with a HARM, which the EA-6B is/can be armed with.

[Poohbah]

But now we're back to the same problem...there is an inherent mismatch between airframes here.

Also, if ECM is THAT manual-ops intensive, install a datalink and have two more ECMOs back on the ship.

[tbeatty]

But wasn't the A7 a disappointment also?

The A7 was a single engine, subsonic attack plane. `The single engine made it tough on pilots who lost it over water. Now, all carrier aircraft must have at least 2 engines.

[midwestmidnight]

The YF-17 was never designed for the same role as an F-14

Never said it was. It was designed, by Northrop as direct competition for the F-16 under Air Force flyoff directives...and came in second best.

The Navy has always preferred twin-engined jets. It was hoped that when the Navy chose a scaled up version of the YF-17, $millions would be saved in development costs (Yea, right. That always works!).

In hind sight, maybe the solution to the F-14 replacement issue would probably have been best served by combining the fuselage/engine nacelles of the F-18 Super Hornet with the wings and vertical stabilizer of the F-16E. This would probably allow for greater range, payload and speed while allowing the reliability of two engines.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The Harrier and the JSF have one engine.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

More bodies onboard gives the airplane and the TJS greater flexibility. Again that's why the EF-111 was no match for the EA-6B. Since fire control threat emitters don't radiate omnidirectionally the jamming antennas need to be steered manually, particularly if the launchers are mobile. History has shown that the crew configuration on the Prowler is superior. Attempting to have one person perform the tasks of three just doesn't cut it.

The day that a reliable high speed datalink exists to conduct operations in excess of 500 NM from the carrier or land base then UAV's will most likely be deployed and everyone can remain either on the boat or on the ground.

[quietolong]

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.

On this thread

The Carrier Myth.

Goldi-Lox posted on #4

So what does the government do with a TOTAL WINNER like the Tomcat...pays several million dollars to destroy the tooling so they can never be built again! Thank Dick Chaney personally for that one

also see reply 22

What a dumb thing to do . In the 50s the experts said. Don’t put guns on . And then in the 60s Had geakboy screwing every thing up. And this “ one for all “ Thing has been tryed. No one ever learns.

Plus the F-14 has two people on board. One to bend the craft around the sky. And one to tweak the knobs. I don’t care how fancy the computer & HUD are. One guy can’t do it all ! The Pilot & Reo are two different personalities. Can a F- 15,16,18 be looked out the front & back at the same time. the F-14 can.

The F/A-18s a good aircraft but it was a replacement for the A-4 & 7 not the F-14.

Now for the weekend everyone go out and get. Flight of the Intruder, Top Gun, The Final Countdown and Bridges at Toko Re. And round the night off with Dr. Strangelove, Fail-safe. & Strategic Air Command. ( there also a good 60s F-104 move can’t remember what it is )

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

“We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them.”

That's all I need to hear on this issue.

[CyberCowboy777]

Both aircraft doing great!

F-14S taking part in the large bombardment of Iraq

[tophat9000]

And isn't the F-18 a development of the F-17 from the mid-70's?

True but the F14 is mid 60's and started life with the lame TF30 engines in inherited from the F111B but went on to be a great aircraft

Like the story states: "Every airplane that goes into service is accompanied by controversy"

[185JHP]

Hmm. Slower, less range, less ordnance. Could the choice of the Hornet have anything to do with it being easier to fly when the pilot lacks a physical characteristic long associated with Naval aviators - a chest that's got hair on it?