leib10

Then why don't they keep the 80 or so B and D's in service to do the job better than any other aircraft in the world?

Anon

$$$$$$

leib10

To be sure, they're expensive aircraft to maintain, but one F-14 could probably do the job in the interceptor role just as well as several F/A-18 E/F's.

Anon

One F-14D can do a few things that no number of S.Hornets can do.

Like close on an intercept point at a high mach number and engage six targets simultaneously from a range of approx 100 nautical miles.

Or go supersonic on the deck.

The F-14Ds next biggest advantadges are probably pure acceleration and range.

BenRoethig

Not only supersonic on the deck, but supersonic on the deck with a full payload.

BenRoethig

The Navy would have to do a number of changes to the airframe including adding a second seat, additional air to ground capability, and probably a higher landing gear like the JSF. The wing might need to be changed, but the raptor is said to have much better approach speeds than conventional air force jets. The Navy could try to piggyback some of these could be piggybacked onto the FB-22 project, but it would still be a huge chunk of change for the Navy to develop.

Anon

"Not only supersonic on the deck, but supersonic on the deck with a full payload."

Mach 1.2 @ SL with 2x 222gal drop tanks, four AIM-54s, 2 AIM-7s, and 2 AIM-9s IIRC.

Dima

ah come on, cut the F/A-18E/F some slack, it's a great aircraft, is the reason why they are applying it for carrier defense is because it's A LOT cheaper to maintain than the F-14? i know that the F-17 really provided some very advanced concepts, like improving fuel economy

__________________
for MOTHER MOLDOVA

BenRoethig

Let me lay out an senario for you. Country x has purchases SU30Mks and either KH-35 or even KH-41 (air launched sunburn) anti-ship missiles. The KH-35 has a range of 70nm and the KH-41 has a range of a 130nm. Given the super hornets speed problem, I doubt it could make this intercept and the task would have to fall on the cruisers, and the carrier's own defenses. Both the Raptor and the Tomcat could with AMRAAMs, due to their high top speed and acceleration rate. Add the Phoenix to the equation and the Tomcat barely breaks a sweat. Personally, I'd rather spend a bit more on the maintance budget than have to spend 6 billion on a new carrier.

Yes, the super hornet is a great aircraft. It's the aircraft that should have replaced the A-7. What it isn't is an interceptor

Anon

"Yes, the super hornet is a great aircraft. It's the aircraft that should have replaced the A-7. What it isn't is an interceptor"

Agreed 100%.

The F-18E is what the F-18 should've been all along.

BenRoethig

Its what the Navy wanted the Hornet to be all along. The DoD wanted a carrier based light fighter. They ended up with a capable aircraft, that didn't have the range it needed to. The unfortunate part is now that they got it right, its about to become obsolete.

jgetti

I'll agree that they finally got it right,, but I wouldn't that it's about to become obsolete.

BenRoethig

Compared to the JSF its obsolete. Compared to the other gen 4.5 aircraft such as the eurofighter, its the best ground attack aircraft in the bunch..

jgetti

Don't let anyone fool you,, aside from it's increased stealth aspects,, the navy wants nothing to do with it. Not to mention, the Superhornet has the lowest RCS of any non-stealth fighter period. You would see little improvement between an F-35 with external stores over a Superhornet. Besides that, you'll be waiting a while before you see any operational F-35C's,, several years.

BenRoethig

I'd want the things that the JSF has but the SH doesn't i.e. DAIRS, intergrated optics package with IRST, and touchscreen cockpit.