Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
    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 it think Grumman didn't do it self any favors in marketing and trying to sell it though.
    Yes, but what I thought was a good point is that the Super Hornet could be developed using the F/A-18C's radar and avionics, with the new stuff developed down the road for the Block II aircraft. Block I aircraft could be upgraded down the road if desired. But basically it allowed the new air frame to get into service very quickly with existing and working equipment.

    Any Super Tomcat variant wold have needed completely new avionics to be developed (because of the age of the Tomcat's systems) before the aircraft was fielded, which takes time.

    It really is a shame. The SuperCat would have been amazing, but I'm starting to see why the SuperBug came to be.
    Last edited by JA Boomer; 11 Dec 14,, 20:36.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fastam View Post
      Without knowing the 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 maintenance and increase ops tempo with a more reliable airframe.
      The other thing you have to remember is, right about this time, fleet defense became less of an issue due to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and dropping bombs on (relatively) undefended targets (Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.) became more important. The F-18 was so-so at fleet defense, especially when it was first armed with the Sparrow, but really good at dropping bombs; it was a definite sea change for the main mission of the Navy in the late '80's/early '90's. But now, with the resurgence of Russia, and China trying to build a blue-water navy, it needs to be good at both.
      "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
        Yes, but what I thought was a good point is that the Super Hornet could be developed using the F/A-18C's radar and avionics, with the new stuff developed down the road for the Block II aircraft. Block I aircraft could be upgraded down the road if desired. But basically it allowed the new air frame to get into service very quickly with existing and working equipment.

        Any Super Tomcat variant wold have needed completely new avionics to be developed (because of the age of the Tomcat's systems) before the aircraft was fielded, which takes time.

        It really is a shame. The SuperCat would have been amazing, but I'm starting to see why the SuperBug came to be.
        this is where I get a bit lost, but when people reference the 'avionics', exactly what are talking about?

        With the increased size/weight and different handling of the aircraft, how much (and what part) of the avionics are still the same?

        Cost and Politics it seems?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
          this is where I get a bit lost, but when people reference the 'avionics', exactly what are talking about?

          With the increased size/weight and different handling of the aircraft, how much (and what part) of the avionics are still the same?

          Cost and Politics it seems?
          Wikipedia says: "Avionics are the electronic systems used on aircraft, artificial satellites, and spacecraft. Avionic systems include communications, navigation, the display and management of multiple systems, and the hundreds of systems that are fitted to aircraft to perform individual functions."

          According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-Super-H...8333664&sr=1-5, initially the Super Hornet's avionics and software had a 90% commonality with that of the F/A-18C/D fleet at the time.

          Basically the Block I Super Hornets had the same radar and avionics with improved cockpit displays. In my mind this would have been the biggest reason the SuperBug was chosen over the SuperCat, less risk in developing new systems because the new air frame could be operational with existing systems a lot sooner than the SuperCat could have been fielded.
          Last edited by JA Boomer; 11 Dec 14,, 22:40.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
            Wikipedia says: "Avionics are the electronic systems used on aircraft, artificial satellites, and spacecraft. Avionic systems include communications, navigation, the display and management of multiple systems, and the hundreds of systems that are fitted to aircraft to perform individual functions."

            According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-Super-H...8333664&sr=1-5, initially the Super Hornet's avionics and software had a 90% commonality with that of the F/A-18C/D fleet at the time.

            Basically the Block I Super Hornets had the same radar and avionics with improved cockpit displays. In my mind this would have been the biggest reason the SuperBug was chosen over the SuperCat, less risk in developing new systems because the new air frame could be operational with existing systems a lot sooner than the SuperCat could have been fielded.
            less risk == less cost I guess.

            interesting though, I had asked only because I wasn't sure if it was actual 'equipment' or 'software' (for lack of better words) or both, and it sounds like both.

            thanks for the info!
            Last edited by bfng3569; 11 Dec 14,, 23:27.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
              less risk == less cost.

              interesting though, I had only asked only because it sure if it was actual 'equipment' or 'software' (for lack of better words) or both, and it sounds like both.

              thanks for the info!
              Soft, firm, and hard these days.

              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.
                Here's the thing about unmanned platforms: I don't think they can take center stage in a world where the enemy will increasingly seek to deny reliable communications, at least, not if you'd like to maintain some semblance of control over them once you launch them off the deck.

                Don't get me wrong I think there will be lots of drones flying around the future battle fields, but some where in the middle of those swarms will be guys and gals flying around in stealthy airplanes, acting as shepherd.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                  Soft, firm, and hard these days.
                  TMI, sir, TMI . . . . .
                  "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 bfng3569 View Post
                    less risk == less cost I guess.

                    interesting though, I had asked only because I wasn't sure if it was actual 'equipment' or 'software' (for lack of better words) or both, and it sounds like both.

                    thanks for the info!

                    The avionics comonality would have also allowed a reduction in logistical support costs. If your 2 main aircraft required many of the same components, it would allow accurate projections of long lead items, thus reducing logistical cost.

                    Comonality also reduces training costs for the mantience crews as well.

                    What it all means is that the unit costs of the SH and advanced F14s may have been not far apart.But further development of the hornet would have been cheaper run over the life cycle.

                    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.
                      I buy into this for almost everything. I think air-to-air will continue to be manned, because of technical limitations that make it impractical and we're not going to break through anytime soon (such as latency). Strike and some other things I can definitely see being optionally-manned, like the QF-16s and their predecessors. I don't believe we're within decades of trusting computers to make the decision to kill people, which means datalink control by humans on the ground for at least part of the mission. But that carries risks when operating in an EM contested environment. Things aren't going to go well if our UCAVs are flying through such a thick EM soup that the pickle command doesn't make it through.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                        The other thing you have to remember is, right about this time, fleet defense became less of an issue due to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and dropping bombs on (relatively) undefended targets (Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.) became more important. The F-18 was so-so at fleet defense, especially when it was first armed with the Sparrow, but really good at dropping bombs; it was a definite sea change for the main mission of the Navy in the late '80's/early '90's. But now, with the resurgence of Russia, and China trying to build a blue-water navy, it needs to be good at both.
                        One thing that has struck me though is that the super hornet is probably the right plane for the right time. By the time either of those warms up, it's replacement is well and truly on it's way. Same goes with the F-22. It will need to be replaced. It's airframe hours will be used up.
                        Ego Numquam

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                          The other thing you have to remember is, right about this time, fleet defense became less of an issue due to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and dropping bombs on (relatively) undefended targets (Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.) became more important. The F-18 was so-so at fleet defense, especially when it was first armed with the Sparrow, but really good at dropping bombs; it was a definite sea change for the main mission of the Navy in the late '80's/early '90's. But now, with the resurgence of Russia, and China trying to build a blue-water navy, it needs to be good at both.
                          One thing that has struck me though is that the super hornet is probably the right plane for the right time. By the time either of those warms up, it's replacement is well and truly on it's way. Same goes with the F-22. It will need to be replaced. It's airframe hours will be used up.
                          Ego Numquam

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                            Here's the thing about unmanned platforms: I don't think they can take center stage in a world where the enemy will increasingly seek to deny reliable communications, at least, not if you'd like to maintain some semblance of control over them once you launch them off the deck.

                            Don't get me wrong I think there will be lots of drones flying around the future battle fields, but some where in the middle of those swarms will be guys and gals flying around in stealthy airplanes, acting as shepherd.
                            Who says one must communicate with them?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                              Who says one must communicate with them?
                              Anyone who's watched terminator

                              Seriously there is a set of missions that are done by cruise missiles and strike aircraft today that can probably be done much better by autonomous ucavs, but there are also probably things that are complex and dynamic enough that you'll want mark 1 brains to make decisions.

                              If you put brains in the middle of the swarm you give them access t9 VA's5 amounts of realtime data and real tome command over what the swarm does. If you have them back at the ship you might be allowing your bandwidth to be reduced to a trickle and extending your latency in decision execution by minutes or hours.

                              It will be another version of ooda and the guy who can get reliable low latency large bandwidth communications despite constant jamming and attacks on intermediaries will do it better. That guy is probably in the middle of the action, within direct like of sight of at least some of his AI buddies.

                              Sorry about the spelling. Post8ng from my cell phone.

                              Comment


                              • Skipper, in your future of Naval Aviation with drones I gotta wonder.....

                                What will the Tailhook parties be like?

                                And how would they redo the great gay pron movie, Top Gun?
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X