canoe

Read through the debate posted below regarding the F18-F14 comparisons and it seems obvious that the F14 is superier to the Super Hornet in virtually every way possible.

The next question is if the Navy plans to make up for the loss of the F14's with the F35's will they be a worthy and capable successor?

Some immediate advantages the F35 would have that I could see by just looking at the current posted stats:

- F35 mission radius is ~600 nm versus the F14's at 500 nm
- F35 steath features
- F35 will have far more modern avionics and a more efficent engine
- F14 has two engines F35 only has one (unusual for the navy)
- F35 is a physically smaller aircraft, this is relivent for carrier ops
- F35 is *supposed* to be easier to maintain and operate
- F35 will obviously have newer airframes and have a longer projected lifespan
- F35 (Navy) will have a payload capacity of ~17,000lbs versus the F14 with 13,000lbs.

HistoricalDavid

Neither the F-35 nor the Super Hornet have the characteristics truly necessary for the F-14's mission - that of an interceptor.

Speed. Above all, but in addition to things like rate of climb.

(Plus the ability to embark Phoenixes.)

As a result, carrier battle groups have reduced long-range air defence, namely against Backfires. Even with your other points, assuming they're correct, the JSF simply cannot fulfil that role of interceptor quite as well as the Tomcat.

Anon

I would state that as a 'fleet defender', going strictly from a FLIGHT PERFORMANCE standpoint the F-14D is superior to the F-18E/F in every way.

But to simply say that overall it is superior in every way, is completely false.

That being said the F-18E/F, IMO at least, possesses completely inadequate flight performance to satisfactorally perform the role of fleet defender.

jgetti

Superior to the SuperHornet in every way possible hmm?

- F/A-18 E/F has longer combat radius
- F/A-18 E/F steath features
- F/A-18 E/F already has far more modern avionics and more efficient engines
- F/A-18 E/F has two engines, same as F-14
- F/A-18 E/F is a physically smaller aircraft, this is relivent for carrier ops
- F/A-18 E/F *PROVEN* to be easier to maintain and operate, 50 MMHPFH for F-14 compared to 7 MMHPFH.
- F/A-18 E/F already has newer airframes and have a longer projected lifespan
- F/A-18 E/F already has a payload capacity of ~17,750 lbs versus the F14 with 13,000lbs.
- F/A-18 E/F has better low speed maneuverability than F-14.
- F/A-18 E/F has more reliable, versatile, and much harder to detect radar than the F-14 in the APG-79, and it has it NOW.
- F/A-18 E/F has better targeting system in ATFLIR than ANYTHING flying today.

The ONLY problem with SuperHornet is that it's not an interceptor,, wasn't designed to be. Phoenix or a suitable alternate could be easily integrated onto Superhornet so I'm not holding that against it as far as fleet defence. SuperHornet shares over 75% avionics commonality with Hornet, and most support equipment already in place for Hornet will support SuperHornet, and many components are interchangeable. It's 95% common with the E/A-18G which will also be on the flat tops soon enough, and has restored buddy tanker capability. What I'm trying to say is IT BELONGS ON THE BOAT. It might not be the ideal First Day of War aircraft for NAVAIR, but it is THE Every Day of War workhorse. No-one and I mean NOONE else can do that now, and the JSF won't either.

Sounds to me like JSF is the aircraft out of place. It's performance characteristics are essentially the same as SuperHornets, so why the hell are we building it? It's improved stealth characteristics are ONLY valid when no targeting systems are hanging out in the wind, no external pylons are in place, which consequently means no external stores and no additional fuel. In that situation, it also has NO RANGE. Maybe we should be building a suitable replacement for F-14,,, JSF's job is already filled and filled BETTER.

Everyone also says the maintenance aspect isn't as important as capability. To that, I'd say this: How many 2 hour sorties can you fly in the first week of a war with 12 F-14's (assuming they'd all be flight worthy at the same time) when they average 50 maintenance hours per flight hour? The math doesn't pan out very well , even for the first day of war arguement, much less the first week, and much MUCH less than every day of war.

gunnut

Why can't we use F-35 in the fighter/interceptor role? The Superhornet is obviously a strike/bomber with some fighter capability where as the F-35 with its stealth and manuverability is more a figher than a strike aircraft. Sure it doesn't have the Phoenix, but the Phoenix is old. The threat it was built to face no longer exists. The Chinese is the only foreseeable super power on the horizon and it's no where close to challenging the US navy. We can probably rig something up fairly fast to make the F-35 a suitable interceptor of bombers and supersonic cruise missiles if we have to. Meanwhile the F-35 should suffice as the main fleet air defense fighter for the next decade.

I'm sorry to see the mighty Tomcat go. But the reality of the situation is that it is simply too old and too expensive to operate.

jgetti

Maneuverability isn't a weakness for SuperHornet, it's about as maneuverable as an un-thrust-vectored aircraft is going to get.

I think you'd have the same problems with trying to turn F-35 into a better interceptor as you would with turning the SuperHornet into a better interceptor. The problem with both platforms lies in their fixed-inlet geometry, and the shallow rake angle of their wings which is necessary for low-speed carrier landings.

I otherwise agree with your sentiments,, it's sad to see it go, but it was overdue. The fact that NAVAIR has failed to get a replacement in the works is a whole other problem altogether.

gunnut

But do we really NEED a replacement of the F-14? What threats are we trying to defeat with a super duper interceptor like that? Isn't the F-35 sufficient in defeating all short term, possibly mid term threat?

Anon

I'll give you everything on your list but that one.

Anon

The Sidewinder is almost sixty years old. THAT's old dude.

The latest model of the Phoenix, the AIM-54C SEALED ECCM was introduced in 1991- the same time as AMRAAM.

That aint very old.

Really? You mean Russia doesn't still have over 100 Backfires in service?
When did that happen?

Anon

How about a multi sqn(or regiment) attack of SU-30s ripple firing a salvo of Sunburn or Brahmos type AShMs from a range of 200+ miles out on multiple bearings?

I'd say that's a threat that requires a SERIOUS interceptor.

And as i said, the Backfire is still around in very large numbers to be just pretending it's irrelevant. The Russians are never more than a coup away from being the Evil Empire again.

None of us should forget that.

Captain Drunk

Lets say theres a worst case scenario, with a panic-struck US carrier in the Mediterranean. Tension is high as everyone aboard hears the sonic booms of Libyan Migs flying very fast and very high aggressively close to the carrier as was the case during the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident, when Libyan Foxbat pilots claimed they sent back many F-14s away from Libyan shores back to their carrier.

Now in cases like these you need an F-14 like "Fast Eagle 102" armed with Phoenix missiles , cos a 'Phoenix-less' Mach 1.8 F/A-18 or F-35 would probably run outta "gas" just trying to intercept those enemy fighters.

Anon

"Fast Eagle 102" on the morning of the incident in question.

gunnut

But there's a small difference between a missile and a fighter jet. The missile performs ONE mission. The fighter jet, preferably, performs many many missions. These sorties put lots of stresses on the frame. The jet needs more and more maintainance as it gets older.

So what is the one overriding concern for a carrier borne interceptor? Is it the range? Because I think the F-35 is just as agile, just as deadly, more stealthy, more reliable, and cheaper to operate than the F-14. The one factor the F-14 supporters keep pointing out is the lack of range of the F-35, both operational range and the range of the armament.

Yes, I know interceptors are needed against supersonic cruise missiles and Backfire bombers. But who has the capability to launch a major offensive utilizing a regiment of bombers now? I don't believe the Russians can, even if a coup turns the government hostile. Most of their hardware is probably rotted through years of neglect due to lack of funds. I don't see the Chinese mounting that kind of threat in the near term, or even the medium term. They need a few decades to get the kinks worked out.

I understand that the military works on the "what if" scenario. We would rather have a worthy successor to the mighty Tomcat than getting caught with our pants down. But the funds are just not there. An advanced carrier super fighter will cost at least as much as the Raptor. The USN will be its only customer, thus making the cost even higher. Production run will be short. Parts will be expensive.

Back to my question though, why do we need the Tomcat/Phoenix combo? Can't the F-35/AAMRAM combo do the job? How about working on extending the range of the F-35? It may not have the speed, but stealth and numbers should make that up.

Captain Drunk

"Gypsy 207" one of the VF-32 Tomcats from the Gulf of Sidra incident with Libyan Mig-23s



Here you can hear the actual recording of that dogfight at this link below, including the famous, "Fox 1, Fox 1" followed by the "Aww Jesus".

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dogfight.html

Sounds great....

jgetti

I think the funds are there,, we're just investing them into the wrong aircraft, namely JSF. We could make a great interceptor with sea legs without having to go through all the crap of the ATF program. Bottom line is, make realistic requirements for the aircraft, and you can develop a great aircraft in a relatively short time for a realistic price.