Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #76
    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.
    After doing some more research, the speed of sounds is 1225 km/hr. I'm pretty sure the Super Hornet's cruise speed isn't above the speed of sound. So I'm prepared to say that figure must be erroneous.

    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
    I beginning to think that when they designed the Super - Hornet, they did so in name only. It's a big disservice to the engineers that designed it in collaboration with the USN... and the USN would have given them some metrics they wanted to say the plane is not good. Invariably bigger will get you further there is no doubt, my only point was how much further.
    I always found it interesting how the USN got around building a new fighter with the guise that is was an upgrade program. But by doing that, they necessitated how the aircraft must LOOK. Anyways, seems to have turned out okay.

    Comment


    • #77
      The point that Fastam and Chunder are missing is that the F-14s will engage the enemy long before they get into weapons range of the carrier. The BEARS and BACKFIRES will have an easier time against the SH mainly because of combat radius. No shit Sherlock that once the SH and the TCats tangle, the SH is the superior bird but by that time that SH tangles, missiles would already be on their way to the carrier.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        The point that Fastam and Chunder are missing is that the F-14s will engage the enemy long before they get into weapons range of the carrier.
        I didn't miss it. I deferred to stwo on the basis that they went far out on a vector. It wasn't definitive that they cap and engage from ship at x range, it was that they went out from the cap distance to said vector.

        I.E it has more range to progress on said vector.

        But nobody seems to know at what distance the SH's CAP at and that no one actually knows how far they can actually vector out by, that it's engagement range depends on how long it's been on station. It isn't even long before. The combat range difference is 200 KM, assuming internal fuel only and what is the real world implication of that in practice. (The hornet is likely to close that gap significantly if they both paired up with drop tanks given the F-14's engines burn about 30% odd more fuel per hour) The time to cover that distance isn't great. Especially since the backfires goal is to get those missiles off (mach 1.88 top speed).

        So, do they actually engage LONG before a Hornet would? I can only defer to stwo.
        Ego Numquam

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
          After doing some more research, the speed of sounds is 1225 km/hr. I'm pretty sure the Super Hornet's cruise speed isn't above the speed of sound. So I'm prepared to say that figure must be erroneous.
          According to this source http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Ri...lock_Three.htm

          It says its actual operation speed is 741kmph Each 480 Gal external tank increase range by 240km's. which is obviously significantly less than 1250! lol Amazing that on a two very public information sources that has not been corrected.

          Edit again

          http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mil...s-f-18e-f.html

          2003.... Dear oh Dear... lol even learnt when TH was born! Lordy Lordy next year your Forty! :p
          Last edited by Chunder; 09 Dec 14,, 12:37. Reason: edit for clarity and some funny info
          Ego Numquam

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Chunder View Post
            2003.... Dear oh Dear... lol even learnt when TH was born! Lordy Lordy next year your Forty! :p
            Dear Lord...I had just joined the board the month before and had just turned 28 a few days before.

            My how time flies...
            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Fastam View Post
              Actually I see it the other way around. You are comparing a paper airplane vs a real plane that has been heavily used in 4 separate conflicts now. There have been lots of pretty drawings of planes with shinny specs over the decades that didn't get built. The advanced tomcat didn't even get a mock up. That should tell you how much of a non starter it was. I refuse to compare a brochure to real life.
              well that's awesome of you, you win then.

              the whole thread was basically directed to the ASF-14, the brochure that was never built.

              the rest of the convo and info is great, but if you refuse to engage in the discussion without changing the parameters...... what ever I guess.

              (and yes, even that part of the discussion having nothing to do with the ASF is great and I hope it continues!)

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                I didn't miss it. I deferred to stwo on the basis that they went far out on a vector. It wasn't definitive that they cap and engage from ship at x range, it was that they went out from the cap distance to said vector.
                Doesn't matter. Both start with the same position and the TCat will still outdo the SH.

                Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                The combat range difference is 200 KM, assuming internal fuel only and what is the real world implication of that in practice. (The hornet is likely to close that gap significantly if they both paired up with drop tanks given the F-14's engines burn about 30% odd more fuel per hour) The time to cover that distance isn't great. Especially since the backfires goal is to get those missiles off (mach 1.88 top speed).
                Already taken into consideration when describing combat radius. Doesn't matter how much more fuel the F-14s burn, they can stay in the air longer.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • #83
                  Was just reading through old F-14 vs F/18-E/F thread and noticed talk about the F-35C possibly taking the place of the F-14. While the F-14 almost certainly trumps the F-35C in payload, the F-35C seems to edge it out both the -14 and the -18 in combat radius. Thoughts?
                  "Draft beer, not people."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    I deferred to stwo
                    Minor nitpick, the Captain is a SWO - Surface Warfare Officer.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Minor nitpick, the Captain is a SWO - Surface Warfare Officer.
                      Yeah, what he said! :)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        BOEING F18F US NAVY SUPER HORNET DEMONSTRATION - …: http://youtu.be/pz2Cl3TnRyMWatch "
                        Super Hornet vs Su 35 Dogfigth" on YouTube
                        Super Hornet vs Su 35 Dogfigth: http://youtu.be/3gX_vZB-2nE



                        Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                        Fastam, stop stating that the current F/A-18E/F has capabilities in some ways superior to the F-14 Tomcat 20 years ago. WE KNOW. It's what happens when you compare something new to something old. To be honest, all your doing is pumping the F-14's tires, because essentially, only recently has the Super Hornet started the replicate some of the capabilities the F-14 provided decades earlier, with the introduction of the AESA radar set and AIM-120D long range missiles.

                        This shouldn't be surprising, given that the Tomcat was designed primarily as a fleet air defense fighter and the Super Hornet took it's form from a multi-role fighter that was developed from a lightweight fighter prototype. The Super Hornet is a great fighter, so was the Tomcat. Sweet.

                        I don't think anyone is arguing the Hornet is/was tighter turning than the Tomcat. As yes, please feel to post the videos you speak of, I'd enjoy watching them.


                        The first one is a bit corny but demonstrates the similar capabilities yet the SH does them without loosing excess engery.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          The point that Fastam and Chunder are missing is that the F-14s will engage the enemy long before they get into weapons range of the carrier. The BEARS and BACKFIRES will have an easier time against the SH mainly because of combat radius. No shit Sherlock that once the SH and the TCats tangle, the SH is the superior bird but by that time that SH tangles, missiles would already be on their way to the carrier.
                          I have posted it several times that the only wiki style combat radius figures posted for the SH is for a bombing mission.

                          Air to air only its combat radius is 600nm. Everything i can dig up on the f14 shows the same. No one can confrim how far out the navy currently fly CAP but with similar combat radius' i would expect to be the same. However it's possible it even futher out, since the SH can buddy tanker support its brothers. And think about that for a minute .When its a tanker its not just that. Its yet another fanatic APG79 in th air data linked to the other hornets and to the E2Ds and Aegis systems. A hornet tanking is a force multiplier.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                            Was just reading through old F-14 vs F/18-E/F thread and noticed talk about the F-35C possibly taking the place of the F-14. While the F-14 almost certainly trumps the F-35C in payload, the F-35C seems to edge it out both the -14 and the -18 in combat radius. Thoughts?

                            The CFT tanks the SH is getting will then exceed the F35Cs radius.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                              Was just reading through old F-14 vs F/18-E/F thread and noticed talk about the F-35C possibly taking the place of the F-14. While the F-14 almost certainly trumps the F-35C in payload, the F-35C seems to edge it out both the -14 and the -18 in combat radius. Thoughts?
                              You always hear that the F-14 bested the Super Hornet is range, the only figures I can find state that the Tomcat held around 16,000 lbs of internal fuel (F-14 Tomcat - Airforce Technology), the Super Hornet holds 14,700 lbs of internal fuel (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker), and the F-35C will hold more than 20,000 lbs of internal fuel (Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)!

                              Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                              The CFT tanks the SH is getting will then exceed the F35Cs radius.
                              It's been my understanding that Boeing has been creating these conformal tanks and weapons pods for the Super Hornet Block III in the hopes of attracting further foreign buyers and that the USN has not shown interest in acquiring these Block III add-ons to this point.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                This article is dated, but I found it interesting: F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet

                                To avoid Silkworm-class missiles, the carrier battle group probably would not want to venture north of a line joining Masqat, Oman and Ahmadabad, Pakistan. Along this line, the group would be somewhat west of Karachi. Reaching Kabul would require a one-way flight of roughly 825 statute miles. Assuming the use of S-3 tankers, an F-14D strike, refueling somewhere between Quetta and Sukkur, Pakistan, wouldn’t have any trouble attacking targets in the northernmost parts of Afghanistan. If, however, an F/A-18E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The un-refueled radius of an F-14D carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 pound LGBs, two Phoenix missiles, and two Sidewinders, plus 675 roundsof 20mm, and two, 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles.

                                Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the bomb load.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X