F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F

[jgetti]

The D model Tomcats are still pretty new planes, and did not have nearly as many problems as the A and A+ did, but they were still very expensive to maintain.

If the navy had gone ahead with the NATF they'd probably be staring at a unit cost of 300 million each right about now...

For the life of me, i don't know why the USN didn't just integrate the Phoenix into the F-18F.

I suppose it could still be done. In order to fill the F-14s shoes, it's going to need more than that. The APG-79 will certainly help for mid-range AMRAAM engagement. Those fixed geometry inlets would have to go, and as you said before, they'll need a lot more thrust,, those F414's are underthrusted now. Additionally, the airframe was never intended to hold enough fuel for that large of a combat radius. I don't know if any type of CFT could be developed or not (or if it would really help). Superhornet has wicked low speed maneuverability for a non-thrust-vectored platform, but the wing geometry wasn't designed for the high speeds that the F-14 can handle, whether or not you thrusted it up. It just simply wasn't designed for that role.

[Bill]

Agreed, but i'd think that even 'as is', just the addition of Phoenix would give the F-18F about 60-70 more nautical miles of useful intercept range because of the increased range of the AIM-54C missile.

[troung]

The F-14 getting replaced by the F/A-18E/F would be similar to the Corsair being replaced by the Brewster Buffalo in 1944...

[jgetti]

The F-14 getting replaced by the F/A-18E/F would be similar to the Corsair being replaced by the Brewster Buffalo in 1944...

No-one's disagreeing with you. That's what we're trying to say,, the F/A-18 E/F is not fit to fill the shoes of the F-14 because it wasn't designed with that capability in mind. Regardless of what any of us think, that's what's happening. If you want to put it in 'apples and oranges' terms,, the Navy is replacing an apple with an orange, but are calling it an apple.

[Bill]

"the Navy is replacing an apple with an orange, but are calling it an apple."

Very well said J.

[ajaybhutani]

US should try fitting F22 on their Carriers for they are the only ones which will make sure that USN will be able to give full air dominance in enemy airspace for any nation.

[jgetti]

US should try fitting F22 on their Carriers for they are the only ones which will make sure that USN will be able to give full air dominance in enemy airspace for any nation.

Easier said than done. When the YF-17 was converted from an airforce fighter prototype into the F/A-18, extensive redesign was required. If I had to guess, I'd say that over 80% of the airframe was changed (mostly beefed up). It takes a whole different animal to withstand the grueling forces of slamming into a deck at the sinkrate that Navy aircraft do, withstanding the enormous loads put through the airframe when the tailhook grabs or the steam catapult throws a bird off the deck, and the wing geometry necessary to slow the aircraft down enough to land without stalling is usually completely different. That's why the F-14 used a sweep wing,, so it could go Mach 2+ and still fly slow enough without stalling to safely land on a carrier,,, the wing geometry has to be completely different.

What was originally proposed with NATF was a variant of ATF as you said, but the most part commonality would have existed in the avionics. Turning the F/A-22 into a Navy aircraft would essentially be creating an all new aircraft that has some similarities to the F/A-22. It'd be pricy. Seems like a great thing to divert JSF money to!

[Franco Lolan]

"Seems like a great thing to divert JSF money to!"

But thats exactly the opposite of what's happening. Rumsfield wants to take money from F-22 and put into JSF.

(I should be SECDEF)

[jgetti]

"Seems like a great thing to divert JSF money to!"

But thats exactly the opposite of what's happening. Rumsfield wants to take money from F-22 and put into JSF.

(I should be SECDEF)

Sometimes I think Rummy has 'cranial-rectal inversion.'

[Bill]

You mean he doesn't?

Hehehe.

[jgetti]

If you have access to Aviation Week & Space Technology articles on the web, there's a great article out there now on the AESA capability improvements on the F/A-18 Superhornet. It's under World News & Analysis and is called "New Radar Triples Air-to-Air Surveillance Range." This will certainly improve upon Superhornet's lethality.

If you don't have access, it essentially states that the new APG-79 AESA radar will triple engagement range 3 fold over the current APG-73 that they are using. Doesn't give exact numbers, but it indicates that it can now see further than the range of AMRAAM (doesn't specify which). It will be capable of targeting multiple aircraft at one time, and will have the ability to paint mobile A-G targets. Future improvements include the ability to track and destroy stealthy cruise missiles. 415 Superhornets will be equipped with these.

Definately an improvement the Superhornets need in their unanticipated replacement of F-14's air superiority capability.

[Franco Lolan]

sounds good. will help "bridge the huge gap".

[leib10]

Wait... I know that the F-14A is going, but are the B/D models going too?

[jgetti]

Wait... I know that the F-14A is going, but are the B/D models going too?

Eventually yes.

[leib10]

That's a damned mistake. A true shame- a legend going to the graveyard.