Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14 Tomcat.... What should have been!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Reading all this through, I still don't get the impression that the SH can stop BACKFIRE regiments from getting into firing range. Whatever hatre of the F-14s and their radar and missiles you have in place, you have absolutely no clue to their effect, even if they don't hit. 12 incoming missiles locked on you, guess what the BACKFIREs would do? They break formation and whatever else, they would have to spend time, effort, and lives in both planes and crews, to get back into firing range and by that time, the F-14s would be on them.

    You have to let the BACKFIREs into firing range before your systems can take effect.

    Maybe the threat is gone, BACKFIRE regiments replaced by closer ranged hypersonic missiles but that does not change the fact, that the SH cannot do what the TCats did. To break a BEAR/BACKFIRE attack up before they get into firing range.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Dec 14,, 13:43.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #47
      ^^ Are you sure?

      I've just been doing some reading - The Tomcats Range is about 200 nm greater than the Hornets - but does this actually mean much (How far to these aircraft CAP from ship?)?

      The Super carries weapons (EDIT: will carry weapons) with the same capability as the F-14 & depending on how far out get there faster than the F-14. They can carry more equivalent weapons than the tomcat, and there are double the amount than there ever were tomcats, and that's with 2 less total squadrons aboard ship than back in the day.

      Is the USN really that worse off? I don't know shit about how far these aircraft actually operated out from ship, but (again correct me if im wrong) that is about the only metric that appears to really matter? Everything else at face value from transit speed to numbers of aircraft to weapons carried, seems to favour the super.

      And that's before one takes into account that you only have 2 squadrons of F-14's, flying 24 hour round the clock ship protection. How many are out at any one time, how many being repaired? Pilot fatigue?
      Last edited by Chunder; 08 Dec 14,, 14:47.
      Ego Numquam

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Fastam View Post
        Not just in my world. The real world! The usn had all the information about advanced tomcats. They chose the better platform to base a new fighter. Because make no mistake a super hornet doesn't have much in common with the legacy jet. Like i said before some the reasons for any new tomcat to be built were also political. Gruman had a lot of enemies in the us gov at the time. With good reason Gruman has totally messed up the A12 and their advanced F14s were way to expensive. When the navy and congress realized that the Hornet could do the job just as well with better sensors and longer legs, which it got both of.

        My problem is that people asserted in this thread that the navy lost some capability the day the F14s were retired. It's simply untrue. The systems on the SH combined with the growler and E2D makes the SH very survivable in the event of fighting a near peer adversary. If the F14 with the systems it had in 2006 went up against Su27/30s backed by S300s they wouldn't be coming home. Super Hornets would.

        That is if any decent number of F14s could get off the deck. According to F14 pilots who transitioned over to the SH when asked about which jet they prefered. Many said "Hornets on the deck beat Tomacts in the hangar".
        political i can totally agree with, cost maybe as i really have no idea, but performance wise i totally disagree.

        and again, your last quote 'Hornets on the deck beat Tomacts in the hangar' is based on what? the legacy aircraft with those systems? You keep comparing f-14's from 2006 to the Superhornet and totally ignore the fact that ASF-14, if it had been built, would not have had those systems. its an apples to oranges comparison.

        its like comparing an F-18A to an upgraded F-14D.

        The comparison isn't a Superhornet to an F-14D.

        Comment


        • #49
          Actually thinking this through, the threat has changed and the SH is not up to the task. Whether or not the DF-21D actually works (and I don't believe that it does), the task has now changed from preventing the enemy from getting into weapons range to preventing the enemy from getting eyes on you. The DF-21D relies on mid-course correction to hit their target. That means the enemy just need to get into radar range, not weapons range.

          Does that answer your question?
          Chimo

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Actually thinking this through, the threat has changed and the SH is not up to the task. Whether or not the DF-21D actually works (and I don't believe that it does), the task has now changed from preventing the enemy from getting into weapons range to preventing the enemy from getting eyes on you. The DF-21D relies on mid-course correction to hit their target. That means the enemy just need to get into radar range, not weapons range.

            Does that answer your question?
            also, a question i have, with all the integration (E2, other naval ships providing air defense etc etc) dont the carrier groups practice operating without emitting signals? Would an E2 be enough without a ship turning on its own search and track radars?

            http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mil...14-tomcat.html

            also, i apologize for starting a new thread, but i hadn't seen this discussion when i did.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Chunder View Post
              I have been told in the not too distant past is the reason that USN flat tops cruise with 40 odd fast jets these days down from the 70 odd, is the increased reliability/cycle rate of the planes in service at present.

              Is this correct?

              The other thing was, that the USN's targeting ability has changed dramatically in the last decade alone... to the point where hitting a manoeuvring hypersonic missile in space with a kinetic kill is feasible.

              As such the thought process about defeating missiles far away in high threat environments, due to the need to protect the carrier is starting to be questioned. One Standard Missile 6 takes up 4x the amount of space as a RIM 162 is which itself 1/3rd the price of the SM6. Due to the high probability of intercept, the thought is that those SM 6's are taking up space (and money).

              Then there is the question of where missile tech is going anyway... A meteor missile has a 100 km range, and weighs 185kg. The AIM 120D has a range of greater than 180km, and a weight of 160kg. The Phoenix a range of 190km and a weight of 470kg. So your Supers missiles still have the reach. Then there is the signals management applied to the super. Sure it isn't as good as your F-22, but we know that it takes a decoy pod with it containing 2 decoys, at $22G each, that are exceptionally effective at luring radar guided missiles.

              Correct me if I am wrong, but in practice supersonic doesn't actually happen in practice, and except in aircraft with the ability to Supercruise, requires afterburner which produces a nasty radar return, and that even with super cruise, the efficiency takes a massive dive over staying subsonic (roughly cutting range by 40%). In practice (again correct me if I am wrong, is actually faster) Tomcat cruise speed 927 km/h F-15 Cruise speed 917km/h Super Hornet Cruise speed 1250km/h. It just hasn't got that top speed, but goes everywhere faster.... Refuelling practices have also changed not to carry the most fuel, but to deliver the most fuel economically.

              So it would appear the Super cops an unfair beating, it just doesn't have the internal fuel load .

              I know the RAAF has Supers operating 8 - 9 hour missions against ISIS flying out of AD I think... Admittedly in clean it's got almost 300 k's an hour over the Eagle & Tomcat, is it fair to assume those missions are taking maybe 2 hours less in transit time to complete than a tomcat or eagle option would? Isn't this an important consideration to take into account with stand off distances involved?

              The same can be said about the comparative range advantages of the F-35C over the F-35B, and why the RN ended up Reversing it's catapult decision - not just because of cost, but because - sortie generation rate being considerably higher with the B than the C and other considerable advantages.
              Here is a typical combat load out for a Tomcat when I was calling the shots in the air war "back in the day." Two Phoenix, two Sparrows, and two Sidewinders. However, what else does that puppy have hanging underneath her? That's right, drop tanks. So you are talking not only the Tomcat's internal load that was the quite unusual, but the drop tanks, and I believe a conformal tank as well, but that was after I was working them.



              CAP for the Tomcat was well away from the fleet formation, out along the threat axis well beyond what a Bear of Backfire would need to close to in order to launch. Also, the KA-6B was a much better gas station than anything we have out there today. They routinely gave the flight surgeons the task of driving them so that they could keep their deck quals current. USN flight surgeons are interesting dudes; half in the bag a lot of the time. No, they were great guys, but a little odd now and then. And that AWG9 radar? Never even radiating until cued by the E-2C using the data link. Even then, one of those Soviet bombers wouldn't necessarily know they were being targeted, because the AWG9 was a "track while scan" radar, much like the SPY-1 systems. They could track 48 contacts and engage six if they were carrying six AIM54s, which they never did, although it does give one a bit of a chub looking at them that way. The Phoenix only went active itself until the last few seconds of flight, not enough time for a bomber crew to react. When considering the F-14/AWG9/AIM54/E-2C should be looked at in the same way as the M1A2/Apache/MLRS is considered as one total weapons system, because that is exactly what it was. None of it was ever supposed to be "stand alone."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                also, a question i have, with all the integration (E2, other naval ships providing air defense etc etc) dont the carrier groups practice operating without emitting signals? Would an E2 be enough without a ship turning on its own search and track radars?

                http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mil...14-tomcat.html

                also, i apologize for starting a new thread, but i hadn't seen this discussion when i did.
                Yes. In fact, the ships in formation were generally in EMCON Alpha most of the time while underway. The radars are in "hot stand-by" and can begin radiating within a couple of seconds of being alerted. When you are "discovered" there isn't much point in staying radio silent any longer. Also, the SPY-1 even when radiating often appears to be passive. It's a tough signal to pick-up and process. Having the E-2C/D up and out along the threat axis doesn't necessarily let a potential attacker know where the rest of the formation actually is. Additionally, in those days we also had a EA-3 Skywarrior ELINT bird topside, covering all of the threat emitters and comms expected. One more thing; we always knew when the Soviets were about to launch a Bear D out of Aden, then the socialist state of South Yemen. How? We, the carrier, and the cruiser both had Ship's Signal Exploitation Spaces (SSES); they could pick up, localize, and even interpret any voice comms out there and as the Soviets were always given to chatter before takeoff, we had their number, and let the command and control team know that there was a Soviet visitor in our future. So the E-2C would be vectored out that direction, and we could even keep the Tomcats on deck in Alert 5 status as it saves on aircrew fatigue.

                One other thing to add to the picture is the role of what was variously known as the PIRAZ or during Vietnam, “Red Crown” ship. PIRAZ stands for Positive Identification Radar Advisory Zone. It’s a “shooter” that you put out on the threat axis, 100 miles or more, whose job it is to separate the wheat from the chaff. All of the aircraft that pass through his vicinity better be squawking the correct “modes and codes” through their IFF transponders or they are going to get a Mach 4 telephone poll shoved up their fundaments. It’s not a pretty sight.

                So for example if Alpha Whiskey sent a two Tomcat flight out along the threat axis to intercept a Backfire, they have to come home eventually. They’ll be squawking correctly and therefore safe. If there are enemy aircraft coming through, they won’t be, and the aforementioned telephone poles dispatched in their general direction.
                Last edited by desertswo; 08 Dec 14,, 18:00.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                  Roger that, I guess I was put off by the tone of his responses.
                  Me too, but you know, I've done it as well.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    I have been told in the not too distant past is the reason that USN flat tops cruise with 40 odd fast jets these days down from the 70 odd, is the increased reliability/cycle rate of the planes in service at present.

                    Is this correct?
                    I would think that is a fair assumption, along with cold war reductions in capability and other budget cuts that reduced squadron numbers and made the F-18C/E/F/G combo attractive.

                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    The other thing was, that the USN's targeting ability has changed dramatically in the last decade alone... to the point where hitting a manoeuvring hypersonic missile in space with a kinetic kill is feasible.

                    As such the thought process about defeating missiles far away in high threat environments, due to the need to protect the carrier is starting to be questioned. One Standard Missile 6 takes up 4x the amount of space as a RIM 162 is which itself 1/3rd the price of the SM6. Due to the high probability of intercept, the thought is that those SM 6's are taking up space (and money).
                    When the USN decides it can rely solely on a surface-to-air missile with a range of less than 50 km I'll eat my shorts. If the ESSM is performing well that's great, but I think that's why you saw less CIWS aboard the Burke destroyers coming out of the ship yard for a time .. not a reason to do away with the Standard missile series.

                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    Correct me if I am wrong, but in practice supersonic doesn't actually happen in practice, and except in aircraft with the ability to Supercruise, requires afterburner which produces a nasty radar return, and that even with super cruise, the efficiency takes a massive dive over staying subsonic (roughly cutting range by 40%). In practice (again correct me if I am wrong, is actually faster) Tomcat cruise speed 927 km/h F-15 Cruise speed 917km/h Super Hornet Cruise speed 1250km/h. It just hasn't got that top speed, but goes everywhere faster.... Refuelling practices have also changed not to carry the most fuel, but to deliver the most fuel economically.

                    So it would appear the Super cops an unfair beating, it just doesn't have the internal fuel load .

                    I know the RAAF has Supers operating 8 - 9 hour missions against ISIS flying out of AD I think... Admittedly in clean it's got almost 300 k's an hour over the Eagle & Tomcat, is it fair to assume those missions are taking maybe 2 hours less in transit time to complete than a tomcat or eagle option would? Isn't this an important consideration to take into account with stand off distances involved?
                    I can't say you're wrong. But those numbers just don't LOOK right to me, is their a source for these numbers? Perhaps Choggy or Jimmy can provide more clarity on the issue. I believe the Super Hornet can not break the sound barrier at sea level, so if it's max efficiency cruise speed was higher than any of the other teen series designs I would be shocked.

                    As for range/payload. I think it's pretty universally accepted that the Tomcat was better than the Super Hornet. Again, I don't want to get into a flame war, it doesn't mean that the F-14D was a better platform then the Super Hornet. But I think for the Super Hornet to approach the range of a F-14 in standard configuration as WSO pointed out, they'd have to fly a lot of fuel tanks.

                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    The Super carries weapons (EDIT: will carry weapons) with the same capability as the F-14 & depending on how far out get there faster than the F-14. They can carry more equivalent weapons than the tomcat, and there are double the amount than there ever were tomcats, and that's with 2 less total squadrons aboard ship than back in the day.
                    As far as I know there was always 2 Tomcat squadrons deployed per air wing. Currently there are 2 Super Hornet squadrons deployed with 2 C-model legacy hornet squadrons in at least half the air wings. So I think it's fairly comparable.
                    Last edited by JA Boomer; 09 Dec 14,, 00:22.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I'll defer to DesertsTwo. Not even remotely interested in flaming - I was just checking out hard technical data.

                      The sources of the Super Hornets Cruise speed are all over google, I wanted to check them as it didn't seem right.

                      I was trying to make the point that although technically faster the SH was considerably faster in commute than its near peers (and that we do fly big distances with them), that the reality is these jets don't use afterburner to get where they are going, and that in supercruise, your fuel consumption is horrendous.

                      Id also assume that given the AIM 54 weighs almost 3 times that of the Aim 120 D - that is a 620kg saving on two phoenixes alone. The Sparrow was 230kg, so the SH is saving an additional 140kg on top of that.

                      I'm not sure how much extra range a SH can get out of 760kg (1085 extra Litres or 286 gallons) versus how much extra range a TC can get out of 285 gallons - Coincidently, one of those drop tanks on the F-14 is a 280 gallons.

                      Im just throwing it out there in the interests of the conversation :) You know, trying idly to work my brain :)
                      Last edited by Chunder; 09 Dec 14,, 00:36. Reason: italics
                      Ego Numquam

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                        As far as I know there was always 2 Tomcat squadrons deployed per air wing. Currently there are 2 Super Hornet squadrons deployed with 2 C-model legacy hornet squadrons in at least half the air wings. So I think it's fairly comparable.
                        True, but there were also two squadrons of A-6, one of A-7, one of EA-6B, one of S-3, one of E-2C, a detachment of EA-3B, and one squadron of SH-3. Carrier Air Wing Nine in 1980 was pushed right up against the stops of nearly 100 total air frames. Since the F-18 does so many of those roles that the former aircraft performed, there isn't the weird amalgam that we had way back when. One thing to note is that in a pinch, the A-7 could give a good account of itself in the fleet defense mode. It was a highly maneuverable airplane that could carry a grunch of Sidewinder and Sparrow (you won't see that written anywhere, but they did nevertheless) to go along with its Vulcan cannon. It was a nasty piece of work when properly utilized.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                          True, but there were also two squadrons of A-6, one of A-7, one of EA-6B, one of S-3, one of E-2C, a detachment of EA-3B, and one squadron of SH-3. Carrier Air Wing Nine in 1980 was pushed right up against the stops of nearly 100 total air frames. Since the F-18 does so many of those roles that the former aircraft performed, there isn't the weird amalgam that we had way back when. One thing to note is that in a pinch, the A-7 could give a good account of itself in the fleet defense mode. It was a highly maneuverable airplane that could carry a grunch of Sidewinder and Sparrow (you won't see that written anywhere, but they did nevertheless) to go along with its Vulcan cannon. It was a nasty piece of work when properly utilized.
                          That's very interesting regarding the A-7 SWO. One thing I was trying to research a few weeks ago was just how devastating the A-7 was in the ground attack role, do you have any comments regarding that?

                          One thing that continually came up was how great the range of the A-7 was. So I was curious if in additional to the traditional ground support role it carried out if it performed well in the interdiction role as well.

                          Also, it would seem the F/A-18A/B lacked the payload and range of the A-7 which it replaced. When the Hornet first came into service was it viewed as a step back, or was the addition of the multi-role aspect of the Hornet enough the make it a good addition to the air wing?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                            I'll defer to DesertsTwo. Not even remotely interested in flaming - I was just checking out hard technical data.

                            The sources of the Super Hornets Cruise speed are all over google, I wanted to check them as it didn't seem right.

                            I was trying to make the point that although technically faster the SH was considerably faster in commute than its near peers (and that we do fly big distances with them), that the reality is these jets don't use afterburner to get where they are going, and that in supercruise, your fuel consumption is horrendous.

                            Id also assume that given the AIM 54 weighs almost 3 times that of the Aim 120 D - that is a 620kg saving on two phoenixes alone. The Sparrow was 230kg, so the SH is saving an additional 140kg on top of that.

                            I'm not sure how much extra range a SH can get out of 760kg (1085 extra Litres or 286 gallons) versus how much extra range a TC can get out of 285 gallons - Coincidently, one of those drop tanks on the F-14 is a 280 gallons.

                            Im just throwing it out there in the interests of the conversation :) You know, trying idly to work my brain :)
                            For sure. I'd agree 100% that other than take-off, unless a fighter has a troops in contact call or is engaged in the air, he's unlikely to use afterburner or go supersonic.

                            Where did you get the cruise speeds for the F-14 and F-15? These numbers fascinate me, as I would have guessed the F/A-18 the slowest design, cruise or otherwise.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                              That's very interesting regarding the A-7 SWO. One thing I was trying to research a few weeks ago was just how devastating the A-7 was in the ground attack role, do you have any comments regarding that?

                              One thing that continually came up was how great the range of the A-7 was. So I was curious if in additional to the traditional ground support role it carried out if it performed well in the interdiction role as well.

                              Also, it would seem the F/A-18A/B lacked the payload and range of the A-7 which it replaced. When the Hornet first came into service was it viewed as a step back, or was the addition of the multi-role aspect of the Hornet enough the make it a good addition to the air wing?
                              You know how a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, what do you think? LOL!!:hug: 30 MK82 bombs!



                              You can sort of tell about the quality of a USN airplane, by the length of time it takes the Air Force to raise their hands and say, "ME TOO!!!!" In the case of the A-7, it wasn't long, and they replaced three legacy aircraft with it. It was indeed very good in the interdiction mode, as it replaced the A-1 Skyraider in both services as well. It was a tough, bomb truck, but as I said, load it up with AA weapons and it could hold its own against a lot of aircraft that were in the inventory in other countries back in the day. The guys that flew them loved their jobs, I know that.

                              I was briefly out of the AAW picture, doing my fleet engineer gig, either teaching or inspecting, when the Hornet actually hit the fleet, so I wasn't really aware of the conversations that were probably going on, but I can't imagine the Marines, who track the number of main gun tubes aboard ships in the Navy inventory would have been too happy about reduced range and load for an airplane that is supposed to perform both the CAS and deep interdiction roles.
                              Last edited by desertswo; 09 Dec 14,, 04:34.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                                In two ten month deployments to the IO and NAS circa 1980-1982, I rarely saw an F-14 in the hanger, and as I was the guy who manufactured the O2N2 that all of the aircraft then in operation (save the SH-3s) required, I was on the hanger deck every freaking day. There were one or two hanger queens, but they weren't Tomcats.
                                I am paraphrasing an article that interviewed pilots that transitioned from the F14 to the Super Hornet. In fact it's from the same blog that the first poster linked.

                                It's a recycled phrase though, I've heard it many times in the F14 vs F18 debates. The serviceability and maintenance hours required on the F14 are very public. 60-70 man hours every flight hour for the F14. The SH is around 15.

                                Do you dispute those numbers? I am always willing to hear difference perspectives.

                                Can we talk combat radius? I've looked a the tomcats numbers. In you opinion what was a standard fleet defense misson combat radius?

                                Link to a book on the topic.
                                US Navy F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom - Tony Holmes - Google Books


                                For the record, I am not flaming anyone. But as I said their is an awful lot of out right false information on the super hornet, and when it gets continually repeated, even though its been thoroughly debunked for year, it's aggravating.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X