Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by citanon View Post
    The Navy also needs to save some $s for gen after next platforms. If there is any thing in the 2020s and 2030s that the F-35 can't handle, then the SH certainly can't handle it either. Mortgaging the fleet's future on SHs would not be wise if they are already unhappy with the F-35.
    Fore sure, and they're already considering what the Super Hornet's replacement will be as well: USN, Industry Seek New Concepts For 6th-generation Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com

    Getting back to the original topic, as I think we were quickly sidetracked. If the Super Tomcat would have been developed instead of the Super Hornet in the late 90's, it sure would be cool to still have the Tomcat/Hornet combination on the flat tops.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
      TBH, I don't see that happening; the Navy is as committed to the F-35 program as the Air Force is, and if the Air Force is prepared to axe half of their programs in order to keep the F-35 alive, then I suspect the Navy is in the same position. If the Navy has any EXTRA money then, yes, I could see them spending it on SH upgrades; but with the Navy AND the Marines purchasing the F-35 B/C as fast as they can, I don't see them going out of their way to spend any more money on the legacy Hornets, even the newer SH's.
      They want to cut back the numbers of F35s and delay the purchase to free up money for hornets.

      Looking at the numbers th navy is currently committed to. 260 F35Cs is what the current plan is. But 500 plus SH. The navy says the F35 is to replace legacy hornets ,not SH. So going buy the numbers how much faith do they have in the F35?



      For the record I'm not an F35 hater. It will revolutionize net centric warefare.

      Comment


      • A-Even if the Navy wants to cut F-35C orders, which is very unlikely, it's even less likely Congress will let it.
        B-The fun thing about comparing numbers to numbers from open sources is that it's not that great a way to compare aircraft. Differently planes employ different tactics to take advantage of their capabilities and minimize the effects of their shortfalls. I can't imagine a more worthless statistic in this thread than air-to-air loadout ranges. Aside from the fact that the 14 and 18 are apparently reported to have the same range which i can't believe, those numbers wouldn't take into account how those miles are racked up...altitude, speeds, etc.
        C-Something else I forgot while reading the last 3 pages. Jeez, you guys are posting a lot. lol

        Edit:
        D-Be wary of what's published on the F-35. I don't believe a single number given, both because I don't trust Lockmart to tell the truth on this program without execs being shipped to Gitmo, and because it's still being evaluated and modified.
        Last edited by Jimmy; 11 Dec 14,, 06:14.

        Comment


        • Navy to keep Super Hornets beyond 2040 - General F-35 Forum

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fastam View Post
            They want to cut back the numbers of F35s and delay the purchase to free up money for hornets.

            Looking at the numbers th navy is currently committed to. 260 F35Cs is what the current plan is. But 500 plus SH. The navy says the F35 is to replace legacy hornets ,not SH. So going buy the numbers how much faith do they have in the F35?

            For the record I'm not an F35 hater. It will revolutionize net centric warefare.
            There’s nothing you’ve posted that really gives any credit to the fact that you think the Navy intends to both buy into some of the Block III Super Hornet upgrades that Boeing is working on OR reduce its F-35C buy in order to buy even more F/A-18E/F. The F/A-18E/F is a fine aircraft, but you’re drinking Boeing’s cool aid if you believe otherwise.

            I wouldn't be surprised if they order additional EA-18G Growlers as that mission seems to be more and more in demand and I know they’d like more expeditionary squadrons and are even looking at increasing the fleet squadrons to 8 aircraft a piece.

            As others have mentioned, I’d be shocked if the F-35C was further reduced or delayed because it affects the lot prices for all the other services and foreign flying branches that are purchasing the jet in the coming years. The cuts that have occurred are more in line with budget tightening and sequestration than the need to order more Super Hornets. Plus although the Navy may well have some apprehension about the new aircraft, its first carrier testing sorties went extremely well by all accounts and I’m sure the Navy is looking forward to having its first stealth fighter on the deck so it has a legitimate first-day-of-war combat capability.

            Also remember that I believe at the same time the Navy announced it intends to buy only 260 F-35C, the USMC order of F-35B was also reduced, but it was announced that the USMC would also procure 80 F-35C aircraft to equip 5 squadrons that will deploy aboard the carriers in regular rotation as their F/A-18A+/C squadrons do currently.
            Last edited by JA Boomer; 11 Dec 14,, 08:57.

            Comment


            • Does anyone remember the reasons given for the go-ahead with the Super Hornet and not the Super Tomcat? I’m not trying to second guess the outcome, as clearly the Super Hornet is serving well. I know that when Dick Cheney axed the F-14D program when it was ahead of schedule and below budget there was serious suggestions that he had it in for Grumman.

              Obviously the Hornet was the newer airframe so maybe it simply came down to what airplane they figured had more development life left in it. Although the Tomcat was a larger airframe, so it could have theoretically had more room for improvement. Perhaps the Navy had limited program funds so a new derivative of the cheaper Hornet seemed logical. I’m also betting Boeing’s marketing department outplayed Grumman’s by a wide margin.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                Does anyone remember the reasons given for the go-ahead with the Super Hornet and not the Super Tomcat? I’m not trying to second guess the outcome, as clearly the Super Hornet is serving well. I know that when Dick Cheney axed the F-14D program when it was ahead of schedule and below budget there was serious suggestions that he had it in for Grumman.

                Obviously the Hornet was the newer airframe so maybe it simply came down to what airplane they figured had more development life left in it. Although the Tomcat was a larger airframe, so it could have theoretically had more room for improvement. Perhaps the Navy had limited program funds so a new derivative of the cheaper Hornet seemed logical. I’m also betting Boeing’s marketing department outplayed Grumman’s by a wide margin.
                I don't generally follow these things, but I can hazard a guess. Look to who, or what, the continually benighted people of New York vote for, despite increasingly being ill-served by the entity for whom they most often exercise their franchise. There's your answer vis-a-vis that particular situation. No good deed goes unpunished.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                  There’s nothing you’ve posted that really gives any credit to the fact that you think the Navy intends to both buy into some of the Block III Super Hornet upgrades that Boeing is working on OR reduce its F-35C buy in order to buy even more F/A-18E/F. The F/A-18E/F is a fine aircraft, but you’re drinking Boeing’s cool aid if you believe otherwise.

                  I wouldn't be surprised if they order additional EA-18G Growlers as that mission seems to be more and more in demand and I know they’d like more expeditionary squadrons and are even looking at increasing the fleet squadrons to 8 aircraft a piece.

                  As others have mentioned, I’d be shocked if the F-35C was further reduced or delayed because it affects the lot prices for all the other services and foreign flying branches that are purchasing the jet in the coming years. The cuts that have occurred are more in line with budget tightening and sequestration than the need to order more Super Hornets. Plus although the Navy may well have some apprehension about the new aircraft, its first carrier testing sorties went extremely well by all accounts and I’m sure the Navy is looking forward to having its first stealth fighter on the deck so it has a legitimate first-day-of-war combat capability.

                  Also remember that I believe at the same time the Navy announced it intends to buy only 260 F-35C, the USMC order of F-35B was also reduced, but it was announced that the USMC would also procure 80 F-35C aircraft to equip 5 squadrons that will deploy aboard the carriers in regular rotation as their F/A-18A+/C squadrons do currently.
                  so this might continue the off topic part of the discussion, but the whole logistical question and limiting the number of different airframes to support was a big part of this for the navy (Super vs ASF-14) I thought, so lets say they keep the F-35 (kind of obvious) and the SuperHornets, with the idea that the F-XX (or what ever they are calling the next gen aircraft they have proposed) replaces the Superhornts in the future, they (The navy) would still be looking at the F-35, F-18 E/G and then the follow on aircraft? bringing back three different airframes....?

                  unless the they develop the F-35C or the next gen aircraft into that role?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                    so this might continue the off topic part of the discussion, but the whole logistical question and limiting the number of different airframes to support was a big part of this for the navy (Super vs ASF-14) I thought, so lets say they keep the F-35 (kind of obvious) and the SuperHornets, with the idea that the F-XX (or what ever they are calling the next gen aircraft they have proposed) replaces the Superhornts in the future, they (The navy) would still be looking at the F-35, F-18 E/G and then the follow on aircraft? bringing back three different airframes....?

                    unless the they develop the F-35C or the next gen aircraft into that role?
                    Let's go really off topic. Personally, I believe the days of manned flight in combat are numbered, and the Navy seems to be publicly at least, heading down that path with some vigor. Maybe not quite in my lifetime, but not long thereafter, drones will be doing most of the work and doing it unnervingly well. Why? Because they have no nerves . . . no yips, no buck fever. In short, "no fear," takes on a whole new meaning, as the drones have none of those things that make us who we are and so far at least, them not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                      Let's go really off topic. Personally, I believe the days of manned flight in combat are numbered, and the Navy seems to be publicly at least, heading down that path with some vigor. Maybe not quite in my lifetime, but not long thereafter, drones will be doing most of the work and doing it unnervingly well. Why? Because they have no nerves . . . no yips, no buck fever. In short, "no fear," takes on a whole new meaning, as the drones have none of those things that make us who we are and so far at least, them not.
                      a bunch of kids playing video games....!

                      I guess I was just thinking about the logistics of it all, and the Navy and Airforce trying to get the common airframes, and (especially with the navy I think?) the reduced number of airframes to carry parts for etc etc.... what impact that would have going forward?

                      throw drones into it too.... I isn't the X-47 scheduled to start testing in flight refueling soon I think I had read......

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                        Let's go really off topic. Personally, I believe the days of manned flight in combat are numbered, and the Navy seems to be publicly at least, heading down that path with some vigor. Maybe not quite in my lifetime, but not long thereafter, drones will be doing most of the work and doing it unnervingly well. Why? Because they have no nerves . . . no yips, no buck fever. In short, "no fear," takes on a whole new meaning, as the drones have none of those things that make us who we are and so far at least, them not.
                        Let's also not forget that they are politically correct in that we are no longer sending our airmen in harms way, and thereby avoiding the fallout that would normally occur if we were "wasting" young men's lives by sending them off to battle. Loss of an unmanned drone pales by comparison to losing an airman's life during a "questionable" conflict; the dollar amount may be similar, but drones are replaceable, pilots are not.

                        So, yes, I see the X-47B/C (and whatever develops from that) becoming the naval aircraft of the future.
                        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                          Does anyone remember the reasons given for the go-ahead with the Super Hornet and not the Super Tomcat? Iím not trying to second guess the outcome, as clearly the Super Hornet is serving well. I know that when Dick Cheney axed the F-14D program when it was ahead of schedule and below budget there was serious suggestions that he had it in for Grumman.

                          Obviously the Hornet was the newer airframe so maybe it simply came down to what airplane they figured had more development life left in it. Although the Tomcat was a larger airframe, so it could have theoretically had more room for improvement. Perhaps the Navy had limited program funds so a new derivative of the cheaper Hornet seemed logical. Iím also betting Boeingís marketing department outplayed Grummanís by a wide margin.
                          Dick Cheney deffinalty had it in for Gruman. However I've read it was more to do with Gruman's failures and a company with a culture of arrogance that because they had been building carrier aircraft for so long,that no one had a chance to beat them. They seemed to forget that McDonnell Douglas built the F4 .

                          As well as airframe issues. I've read the swing wing gear box was very expensive and not reliable. You also have to remember that by the time came to replace the F14. The had been useing the hornet for around 20 years. It had become the work horse of the fleet, it's sortie generation rate was very high. It was a very good bomber, and a good fighter. The F18 remains the only aircraft to shoot down enemy fighters whilst carrying bombs, then continue on it mission ,drop bombs and come home.The navy liked everything the F18 did, but its major short coming was that it had short legs.

                          The early super hornets also ported over all the avionics as they were still current during development. Making development and training easier. There is a hornet pilot over on F16.net that said the transition training from a tomact to a super hornets was 6 months. Where as a legacy to a super hornet was a day.

                          Without knowe thr intimate details. I assume the navy made the calculation that they could accept the block one SH lower air to air capability vs the F14 to reduce mantience and increase ops tempo with a more reliable airframe.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                            Let's also not forget that they are politically correct in that we are no longer sending our airmen in harms way, and thereby avoiding the fallout that would normally occur if we were "wasting" young men's lives by sending them off to battle. Loss of an unmanned drone pales by comparison to losing an airman's life during a "questionable" conflict; the dollar amount may be similar, but drones are replaceable, pilots are not.

                            So, yes, I see the X-47B/C (and whatever develops from that) becoming the naval aircraft of the future.
                            I think the UCLASS RPA that will follow the X-47 will form a part of the air wing for sure. But I would suspect that the F/A-XX that is to follow the F-35C into service and potentially replace the F/A-18E/F in Navy service will be "optionally manned". Giving you the best of both worlds, as I believe for the first generation of unmanned aircraft truly meant to perform robust combat operations there will be times when they still want a man-in-the-loop.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                              Dick Cheney deffinalty had it in for Gruman. However I've read it was more to do with Gruman's failures and a company with a culture of arrogance that because they had been building carrier aircraft for so long,that no one had a chance to beat them. They seemed to forget that McDonnell Douglas built the F4 .

                              As well as airframe issues. I've read the swing wing gear box was very expensive and not reliable. You also have to remember that by the time came to replace the F14. The had been useing the hornet for around 20 years. It had become the work horse of the fleet, it's sortie generation rate was very high. It was a very good bomber, and a good fighter. The F18 remains the only aircraft to shoot down enemy fighters whilst carrying bombs, then continue on it mission ,drop bombs and come home.The navy liked everything the F18 did, but its major short coming was that it had short legs.

                              The early super hornets also ported over all the avionics as they were still current during development. Making development and training easier. There is a hornet pilot over on F16.net that said the transition training from a tomact to a super hornets was 6 months. Where as a legacy to a super hornet was a day.

                              Without knowe thr intimate details. I assume the navy made the calculation that they could accept the block one SH lower air to air capability vs the F14 to reduce mantience and increase ops tempo with a more reliable airframe.
                              reliability issues I think are pretty moot though, as we aren't talking legacy tomcats, we are talking brand new tomcats, avionics, subsystems, etc etc etc. the superhornet turned out to live up to all its billing in that regard, theres no telling if Grumman could have delivered what they promised.

                              I would agree that i think Grumman didn't do it self any favors in marketing and trying to sell it though.
                              Last edited by bfng3569; 11 Dec 14,, 22:11.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                                The early super hornets also ported over all the avionics as they were still current during development. Making development and training easier.
                                This is also a good point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X