Anon

Let's see how well they actually work when the SH is 30 years old like the Tomcat is. The reason that the F-14 systems have reliability problems now is because they stopped funding improvements to them several years ago.

The F-14D is the best naval interceptor ever fielded, by an extremely wide margin.

leib10

And an equal to the best of its land-based counterparts. The Navy is making a big mistake in thinking that the F/A-18 can come even close to filling the F-14's role in the air superiority/fleet defense roles.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

BenRoethig

In the Navy's defense, they didn't have a choice. After Cheney canned the plan to upgrade the entire Tomcat Fleet to D models, Congress told them to make the bomb truck into a fighter. The original plan was for the Super Hornet to replace the regular Hornets. It ended up having to replace the F-14 and A-6 as well, something it is not well suited for.

jgetti

We've all agreed that the F-14 serves as a much better interceptor than the Superhornet. With respect to maintainability, I think you'll find that no matter how old it is, it is going to have much metter MMHPFH than the F-14 did at the same age. Not to mention MFHBF for any given system on Superhornet is much higher than it was for brand new Tomcats. Even when funded, the Tomcats had reliability issues,, and real big maintainability issues. Any Tomcat pilot now flying the Superhornet will tell you it performed better WHEN IT WORKED.

Anon

The biggest problem with the early tomcats was the TF-30 engine. That engine was never intended to be used on production tomcats...it just sort of worked out that way.

Also, when the F-14 was first fielded it was at the time state of the art, with a lot of new cutting edge technology. Whenever you have that you're going to have maintainability issues. The F-18E/F uses mature technology(with the exception of the new radar-which is not yet in service IIRC, and the ATFLIR- also not in service yet).

The F-14 is like a ferrari, or any other ultra high performance vehicle. By it's very nature it's going to require more maintenance, and be more expensive to run.

If you want reliability, buy a Honda accord. The F-18E/F is the Honda Accord of modern jet fighters IMO.

Of course, you get what you pay for...

jgetti

I think that's a very big understatement of an outstanding jet that is being fielded as something it's not. It has the most highly integrated avionics suite to date with the highest reliability AND adaptability. Yes it does take advantage of mature technology,, something the F/A-22 program seems to have negleted altogether. What it also includes is unprecedented room for system growth built in. If you think this jet is just an extension of the Hornet you are mistaken. It's a brand new aircraft with many convenient similarities to it's predecessor. It took everything good about the Hornet and integrated it with the latest and greatest systems available,, NOT just mature technology, and did so with 40% fewer parts. It is the most technologically advanced aircraft fielded to date. No it does not push the edge of all performance metrics and it wasn't designed to. It was designed to be a workhorse that could get a shitload of different tasks done well and consistantly and that's exactly what it does. You get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck with the Superhornet platform than any other. Maybe not the most bang, but certainly the most bang for your buck. Honda accord,,, that's a big understatement.

Anon

Honda Accords are exactly like the F-18E/F.

Decent performance with the VTEC engine, supreme reliability, a reasonable pricetag, low cost of ownership, and a lot of trunk space.(Though the accord is actually superior wrt fuel economy, lol).

I do know the F-18E/F are all new aircraft btw. Of course they weren't sold that way, because then by law there would've had to be a competition and flyoff. The USN really sold congress a bill of goods by calling it an improved F-18C. It is. as you say, an entirely new aircraft that just so happens to be shaped like an F-18C.

If the USN had used any foresight to begin with they'd have insisted that the F-18A/C have more room for expandibility in the future(IOW, the F-18E was what they should've built to begin with). They didn't, hence it is now at it's maxium potential whereas the USAF F-16 still gets better and better with each new block.

I'd take an F-16 Block60 over the F-18E/F anyday.
Significantly better performance, better range, and a lower initial pricetag.

The F-18E/F is quite adequate for the various ground attack/SEAD roles, and as a point defense fighter, but it is woefully lacking in the Jamming, tanking, deep strike, and interceptor roles. All of which are extremely important roles that the USN must fill, and all are roles the USN is trying to force feed on the F-18E/F.

The only truly advanced systems on the F-18E/F are the radar, JHMCS, and ATFLIR, and none of them is even installed yet..so it's yet to be determined what their actual maintenance costs will be.

In a long range head on engagement F-14Ds would own Super Hornets(or anything else with wings short of an F-22 for that matter). In the deep strike role the F-14D is vastly superior to the Super Hornet(just as the A-6E TRAM was vastly superior to the F-14D in the deep strike role), and in the interceptor role the mismatch is so blatant that there's no point even comparing the F-14D to the Super Hornet...it would be totally unfair to the little Hornet that could.

And in the tanking role both the A-6 and the S-3 were vastly superior platforms than the F-18E/F is.

The Super Hornet is a jack of all trades, master of none. The F-14D on the other hand is the all time master at the game of long range naval interception.

jgetti

Two points I'm going to have to disagree with.

BenRoethig

The Super Hornet would probably well served in the tanking and jamming arena with a less powerful, more fuel effecient version of the F404/414 family. As for the Interceptor role, it needs a new wing, more powerful engines, more fuel, another pair of recessed AMRAAM positions. Wait a minute, that'd be a whole new aircraft.

Anon

Well my position on any issue is never above modification, so if you feel i am leaving out some of the 'state of the art' systems of the F-18E/F, feel free to convince me otherwise.

I'm fully prepared to listen with an open mind.

jgetti

Not to pull the "If I tell you I'd have to kill you" bit,, but I'm not at liberty to discuss any systems not publicly released. Not real helpful for arguement's sake, but that's the cost of being able to participate in public discussions I guess... I will say, however that it does have more state of the art systems than are publicly released. My fiance also works here as an Avionics Analyst,,, basically she derives the equations that the software guys code up for the avionics suites,, so I get a little inside knowledge of those systems as well. The avionics on this airplane really are a thing of beauty,, and they've got some outstanding systems in work,, take my word for it. It was also built with network-centric information sharing in mind,, so it is capable of manipulating data real-time from all over the place. And as more "state-of-the-art" systems are developed,, they will be easier to retrofit into the Superhornet than on any other platform. The avionics suite is as close to plug-and-play as they come.

Also, with the new radar will come a significant improvement in jamming capability. The Superhornet was also designed to incorporate any low observable technologies that didn't cause a gross cost increase. Though it's not a stealth aircraft, it is much more LO than an F-16 and the radar will be more powerful.

I also can't detail maneuverability characteristics, but contradictory to many public posts, it is significantly more maneuverable than the A/D Hornet in many regimes with almost no flight envelope limitations.

Thrust and range are obvious deficiencies,, but again, they aren't as bad as is publicly posted. I also have a feeling that the Navy will eventually wise up and thrust them up.

It may not mean much, but the quality of build on the Superhornet is much better than the F-16 as well. Being so deeply rooted in Naval aircraft,, McDonnell has always been pretty savvy on things such as corrosion prevention, and has made all their aircraft extremely robust (especially the ones that slam into carrier decks,, hehe).. The F-16, however, you can almost hear it corroding. I also have to believe that the aerodynamic design combined with the closed loop flight control system that the Superhornet uses allows it to take on a lot more damage before loss of aircraft occurs. And of course there's always the two engines compared to the one of the F-16 (dirty lawn dart).

It will never be much of an interceptor or deep strike aircraft, but I do think it has a better chance of coming out of a brawl than an F-16.

I really wish I could provide a more sound arguement,, but that's about the best I can do to publicly support my view on this one.

Anon

Fair enough.

But until such information becomes public, or is leaked to yours truly, my opinion will have to remain the same.

PS: All the same things hold true for the newest F-16s and F-22 as well. Just imagine what we don't know about either....

Anon

Fair enough.

But until such information becomes public, or is leaked to yours truly, my opinion will have to remain the same.

PS: All the same things hold true for the newest F-16s and F-22 as well. Just imagine what we don't know about either. I have some excellent sources for the F-22, and i know that the aircraft greatly exceeds listed performance characteristics by a very wide margin. For instance, it's 35k thrust engines actually produce in excess of 40k lbs of thrust each. And i do know that great strides have been made to reduce the RCS of the Block 40 and better USAF F-16s(for instance a new composite inlet lip, LE RAM coatings, etc). Even the F-15 and A-10 have recieved some attention in that department.

jgetti

An old article from the fleet when Super Hornet was just beginning transition.

Navy Carrier Puts New Jet to Test

Monday, April 10, 2000

By TONY PERRY, Times Staff Writer

Defense: Trials begin on the Super Hornet, designed to replace the venerated F-14 Tomcat. For pilots, it may end one love affair and start another.
ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER ABRAHAM LINCOLN -- In aviation or athletics, it is never easy to replace a legend in the lineup.
Comparisons are inevitably invidious. Nostalgia and loyalty are high hurdles.
And so some sympathy might be in order for the 33 tons of metal and advanced electronics called the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
It has fallen to this much-debated, much-analyzed aircraft to supplant the vaunted F-14 Tomcat, the Navy plane that Tom Cruise immortalized in the 1986 movie "Top Gun."
After a decade of research and development, the Super Hornet, officially the E and F version of the Hornet class of fighter, is on the verge of joining the fleet on the high seas as "the pointy end of the spear" of U.S. foreign policy.
For a while at least, the Super Hornet will be an all-West Coast show: The first squadron of planes was tested at China Lake, is based at Lemoore, Calif., and is assigned to a carrier whose home port is Everett, Wash.
If all goes well with the West Coast fleet, the East Coast fleet will follow.
The first batch of pilots and weapons officers who will fly the Super Hornet on a real deployment began doing landings and takeoffs this week from the carrier Lincoln, steaming 100 miles off the Southern California coast.
There is a squadron of Navy brass hats and aerospace industry technicians aboard the Lincoln to see if the dozens of technological concerns about the Hornet can be satisfied, or at least explained away.
Like every weapon system since the slingshot, the Hornet has its critics.
In the Congress, the Pentagon and the General Accounting Office, doubters have questioned the cost, capability and strategic assumptions behind the plane. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calls it the Superfluous Hornet.
In a couple of weeks, Feingold will have another shot at the F-18 when the Navy asks Congress for approval to go thumbs-up on full production: 548 Super Hornets at $50.1 million per plane. The main contractor is Boeing, with work also done by Northrop Grumman and Raytheon plants in Southern California.
Analysts are aboard the Lincoln to worry about payload bring-back, survivability, service ceiling, sustainability and other aviation arcana.
But there is another constituency that has to be satisfied: the aviators who will fly the plane, particularly those who have flown the Tomcat.
"The F-14 community loves its plane, but I think they're going to be convinced this is a better airplane," said Super Hornet pilot Lt. Beth Creighton. "The goal of an airplane is to shoot down bad guys and destroy their stuff. The Super Hornet will be great at that."
Naval aviators are ferociously loyal to their planes, even as they curse the quirks that have afflicted every plane since Wilbur and Orville left the bicycle shop.
For example, if you are in an elevator with aviators who once flew the A-6 Intruder, it would be best not to suggest that the Pentagon was correct in phasing out the blunt-nosed bomber in 1997. Your survivability could not be assured under such a condition.
The loyalty among Navy fliers to the F-14 is no less fervent--although it was hardly love at first sight.
When the Tomcat joined the fleet in 1974, there were engine problems, stalling problems and handling problems. There were crashes. Skeptics called it the F-14 Turkey.
Turning a term of derision into one of camaraderie, Tomcat loyalists for years held an annual Turkey Trot Ball at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego.
With its problems finally fixed after years of redesign, the Tomcat became widely acknowledged as the best fighter ever built for speed, endurance and lethality (although many an F-4 Phantom pilot might disagree).
"The F-14 was unique among aircraft in that it earned more respect as it got older," said James W. Huston, former F-14 aviator turned San Diego lawyer and author whose next novel, "Flash Point," to be released next month, has an F-14 on the cover.
The F-14 shot Libyans from the sky, forced the Achille Lauro hijackers to land their getaway plane, provided air dominance during the Gulf War and led bombing raids on Kosovo.
For more than two decades, the Navy had a standing order that no carrier could deploy without two 14-plane squadrons of Tomcats to intimidate any potential adversary.
Past glories aside, the Tomcat's active-duty days are limited. Each carrier now only has one Tomcat squadron, and there are no squadrons based on the West Coast. The early model Hornets have been sharing fighter duties with the Tomcat for more than a decade.
Now, with the Super Hornet on the horizon, the F-14 has a date later this decade with the Navy's retirement home for warplanes in the Arizona desert. The plane is old and maintenance problems are mounting.
Adm. Jay Johnson, chief of naval operations, calls the Super Hornet "the cornerstone of the future of carrier aviation." That sort of description used to be reserved for the Tomcat.
Still, there are those who continue to think Congress erred in deciding to fund the Super Hornet program and scrap plans for an upgraded Tomcat to be called the Bombcat.
There is a rogue Web site for unreconstructed F-14 crew members that asks whether the F-18 is ready to become "the Navy's next-generation interceptor and fleet protector."
It does not help the Super Hornet's image that the Marine Corps, which flies earlier versions of the Hornet, has opted not to buy the Super Hornet.
Scuttlebutt aboard the Lincoln is that the F-14 pilots are--reluctantly, perhaps--transferring their affection to the Hornet, which has superior overall range, larger wings, better electronics and a dazzling array of weapons.
"Believe it or not, I think some of the F-14 guys are ready to fall in love with another plane," said Lt. Mark Weisgerber, a Super Hornet instructor whose job is to teach former Tomcat aviators to fly the Super Hornet.
The Hornet has picked up some important political support from onetime skeptic Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-San Diego), a decorated fighter pilot from the Vietnam War who initially opposed the Super Hornet and wanted the Navy to upgrade the Tomcat.
Cunningham recently flew the Super Hornet, put it through combat-like paces, and came away convinced that the Super Hornet is a better plane for the future than the Tomcat, even if lacks the Tomcat's ability to fly at twice the speed of sound.
"Your airplane is like your wife: There are good points and bad points," Cunningham said from his office in Washington. "You love the good points and learn to put up with the bad points."
The Super Hornet staff is hopeful about winning hearts and minds. "We have made a believer out of every Tomcat person who has flown the Super Hornet," said Denise Deon, Super Hornet spokeswoman for the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md.
Some F-14 aviators are staying put, riding their planes until the end; others are transferring.
Lt. Richard Byrnes, a former Tomcatter now in training to become a weapons officer on the Super Hornet, thinks that one flight in the new plane will dispel any qualms.
"The Super Hornet is extremely departure-resistant," Byrnes said, "which gives the air crew the capability of pushing to the very edge of its operating envelope with absolute confidence."
Translation: The Super Hornet has shown no tendency to shimmy or go out of control even at high speeds and during difficult aerobatics. The F-14, beloved though it may be, has always been prone to bucking and jumping and has been difficult to land on a carrier.

BenRoethig

Biggest difference between the Tomcat and Super Hornet:

Super Hornet: uses technology to make up for problems with the airframe.

Tomcat: uses airframe to make up for problems with technology.