Joe Hegedus Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Well, theoretical the Tomcat could carry 14 MK-82s. http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/bombcat.htm Theory is worthless unless translated into operational hardware. Reality was that the F-14 never deployed with the capability to carry more than 4 A2G weapons. Had the capability been developed early on, who knows what may have happened. But that is something that the whiffers get to play with now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 jus' sayin'. Its not the aircraft, its the pilot. But this pic isnt true, even though it admittedly embarassed the Air Force. So it must not have happened. :) I read 7.6g's, so it is in a pretty hard turn for a handout guns kill. Pretty sure 7.6 was the peak g obtained on the flight; g at the time of the shot looks like 1.7, at .36IMN and 20.3 units of alpha, but it's been a while since I was regularly reviewing HUD tapes. It looks like if he didn't win that engagement with that shot, he's gonna die real soon - just about out of energy at 179KCAS and 15Kfeet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Just a comment from the HUD video...pretty serious violation of ACM training rules..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
utley Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Pretty sure 7.6 was the peak g obtained on the flight; g at the time of the shot looks like 1.7, at .36IMN and 20.3 units of alpha, but it's been a while since I was regularly reviewing HUD tapes. It looks like if he didn't win that engagement with that shot, he's gonna die real soon - just about out of energy at 179KCAS and 15Kfeet. Regardless, the point is that its there. THAT is the big deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) There is nothing superior about the "Super" Hornet's air to air capability opposed to the Tomcat other then a radar that could just as well fit in the latter. It is true that the Super Hornet is a jack of all trades and master of none. But it was designed with the AESA radar in mind and the only operational AESA equiped Navy fighter for the past decade. It gives it significant advantage in BVR engagements. The APG-79 radar may physically fit the F-14D, but will need major surgery to make it operational. Edited November 6, 2011 by Kei Lau Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Well, theoretical the Tomcat could carry 14 MK-82s. http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/bombcat.htm So what, Phantoms could "Theoretically" carry 18 MK-82s and four AIM-7s plus a centerline gas tank ... They could have still probably loaded the four AIM-9s as well ... That means the Phantom was superior to the Tomcat then right ? As for Super Hornet bomb loads ... >>> Hi Res <<< Gregg Edited November 6, 2011 by GreyGhost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Brrrrr, that picture of the Phantom makes me cold! We're about a month away from starting to feel the wrath of old man Winter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
A6BSTARM Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 SPAD VIII vs Fokker/Albatros F4F/P40 vs Zero P51 vs everything else flying P38 vs everything else flying How sucky was the F2A? French Air Units during WW2? Spitfire vs ME-109/ME-110 Soviet Air Force units vs Luftwaffe Chinese Air Force vsw the IJAAF/IJNAF F6F vs everythiing F4U vs everything Which was a better bomber B-17, B-24, Lancaster? Which was the better strike aircraft A-4, A-6, A-1, A-26, F-105, F-100, etc F-14 vs F-4J vs F-15 vs Tornado vs Mirage2k vs MiG-29 vs Su-27 B-52 vs TU-95 vs Tu-16 vs TU-160 vs B-1 vs FB-111 vs Mirage IV vs B-70 vs all the planned strike aircraft coming from the USAF think tank These are all dead horse arguments because we all have our favorites and will defend them to the death. Since we haven't had the F-18A-G go up against the F-14A/B/D in actual combat situtations this is just all supposition, inneuendo and WAGs about which is better. Lets just get away from this please before we esclate to the "I hope you die because the XXX was better the YYY and would never have let ZZZ up in the air. Your just a big old poopy head!". Admit that there are different aircraft built to different standards, having different roles and only as reality crept into the world that planning was scaled back on most of these aircraft. For some of them it was only later in life that they inital planned mission sets were available again after money showed up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
utley Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) F-18 pwnz all! And with that stupid comment, I cant find the insect F-18 model with aim-9 stinger tail and bugeye windscreen! Maybe someone will chime in. Maybe Im a chinese jet pilot... Edited November 6, 2011 by utley Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 As much as I'd agree that this argument is kinda tired, this thread has produced some really informative posts... ones we might necessarily not have seen otherwise. That has to be worth something... right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) As much as I'd agree that this argument is kinda tired, this thread has produced some really informative posts... ones we might necessarily not have seen otherwise. That has to be worth something... right? I find it a bit weird when the wanna-be admin come out of the woodwork with comments about why this thread (and others like it) needs to go away. It's pretty obvious what a thread like this is going to consist of, so instead of posting their silly little pics and snide comments, why not just ignore the thread entirely? Personally, I think the signal to noise ratio on this one is pretty decent and I've learned some new factoids (and been entertained). If others don't come to the same conclusion, just ignore the thread instead of continually whining about it. For the record, I've got no horses in this race. The F-14 was an over-rated relic that never lived up to it's hype and the SH is a limited, compromised airframe that only exists because the USN didn't have the cash / political capital to develop a state of the art fighter / attack aircraft as a true F-14 / legacy Hornet replacement. So there! :) Edited November 6, 2011 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 A thread like this is very meaningful to those who are interested in Naval Air Power, but do not have the first hand knowledge in how these airplanes are used. The F-14 was developed to replace the Phantom II after the F-111B program failed. In 2006, the Navy retired all the F-14's when they decided that the F/A-18E/F is a better replacement. The F-35 will replace the legacy F-18 first and then the Super Hornet eventually, in another 10-15 years. There are good tactical reasons for these navy decisions and should be of great interest to this forum. It is interesting to note that the Super Hornet cannot fly as fast as the Tomcat, but carries a bigger and more versatile loads. The F-35 will not fly as fast as the SH nor carry as big an ordnance. The original post ask a "why" question and I am very interested in hearing the "real" answer. For those who came in to blast this thread as "unnecessary" and the F-14/A-6 fans to insist that the replacement was a wrong decision without facts, please, post your facts. For example, if you believe that the maintenance issue is NOT the reason of the F-14 demise, you can provide some DoD or congressional report citation to support that. I really appreciate the later posts from 11bea, collin and Joe Hegedus. Thank you for the insight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
A6BSTARM Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I don't think the thread needs to go away. Rather it has been informative. Yet, I have seen threads like this spiral out of control pretty fast and all because again we have our favorite aircraft from having worked with them, around them, or just seeing them fly. With that love we will defend them to death. With that said to just add fuel to the fire: GAO report on how the F-14 Buy was going back as early as 1972 A 1971 GAO Report showing that Grumman was bleeding money with the F-14 program A 1994 report showing how the Navy shot itself in the foot with the GAO about ground attack F-14 upgrades A 1997 report showing that the F-14 program was started to be replaced by F-18E/F because of delays with JSF A GAO report from 1977 showing that the F-15 and F-14 buys in the previous few years have been in excess of what is needed A GAO report from 1992 showing that the USN screwed itself with the A-12 fiasco and couldn't decided to retain the production of F-14s or transition to other aircraft. A report from 1972 GAO talkiing about the F-14/AIM54 program and how its costs are starting to spiral out of control due to economic issues in the US A 1974 showing that even with improvement in oversight costs are still rising at excessive rates A 1991 report showing the spiraling costs from the cancellation of the A-12 program and its court cases will lead to budget shortfalls in Naval Aviation _____________________________________ A 2010 GAO report finding that JSF costs are beyond limitation set by Congress and testing is impacting speed of procurement A 1997 GAO report showing that the F-22 is behind schedule and way over budget because of procurment offices living in la-la land. A report as early as 1994 showing the flight, nav, weapon systems computers for the F-22 were not operating to capabilty and had serious reliability issues. F-22 costs are rising faster then expected and outside of Congresionally set limits as late as 2000. A 1977 report showing that the F-15 and some of its vital components for the Radar and Defenisve ECM systems are not ready for Prime Time. A GAO report from 1994 showing that the F-14 and F-15 were still the superior fighters in US Inventory when compared to the threats and we didn't need the F-22 A 1982 report showing only 10% combat capable F-15's in the 1st TFW because of untrained maintenance personnel, no spares and poor or unreliable test equipment A 1990 report showing the ATF program had potentially violated the Goldwater-Nichols act by not being jointly developed between the USN and USAF. A 1979 GAO report even asking if the F-18 program is worth the money being spent on it. And for those that when reading those reports want to roughly convert back to modern dollars try this website: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ All of these GAO reports show is that for the last forty years nearly all aircraft procurement and related maintenance issues have been because of ambitions and pie in the sky expectations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I don't think the thread needs to go away. Rather it has been informative. Yet, I have seen threads like this spiral out of control pretty fast and all because again we have our favorite aircraft from having worked with them, around them, or just seeing them fly. With that love we will defend them to death. With that said to just add fuel to the fire: A 1979 GAO report even asking if the F-18 program is worth the money being spent on it. And for those that when reading those reports want to roughly convert back to modern dollars try this website: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ All of these GAO reports show is that for the last forty years nearly all aircraft procurement and related maintenance issues have been because of ambitions and pie in the sky expectations. Hmmm! Only one GAO report on the F-18 13 years ago. Is the Super Hornet really a "successful program, under budget and ahead of schedule" like the Navy and Boeing would have us believing? Does it have realistic mission requirements and meets the Navy defense needs? I know that these are questions without a black and white answer. But insight questions and fact based opinion would be very interesting to all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Hmmm! Only one GAO report on the F-18 13 years ago. Is the Super Hornet really a "successful program, under budget and ahead of schedule" like the Navy and Boeing would have us believing? Does it have realistic mission requirements and meets the Navy defense needs? I know that these are questions without a black and white answer. But insight questions and fact based opinion would be very interesting to all. The GAO criticizes everything... the Super Hornet was not exceptional in that respect. There were quite a few reports at the time... alot of them were focused on its performance, but some on its cost and its feasibility for Multi year procurement. It was a relatively smooth program compared to others. If you're interested the RAND corporation has an interesting study on the difference between the F-22 and the F/A-18E programs. It gives a sense of how these programs are run. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 If you're interested the RAND corporation has an interesting study on the difference between the F-22 and the F/A-18E programs. It gives a sense of how these programs are run. Can you elaborate, and, better yet, give us a summary recap of the major difference between the two in the RAND report? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Can you elaborate, and, better yet, give us a summary recap of the major difference between the two in the RAND report? Sure... Basically they chalked up the cost difference between the two fighters to three major factors. #1 Revolutionary vs Evolutionary performance platforms. The F-22 attempted to incorporate immature technologies during development, which caused delays and cost overruns. The Super hornet was a low risk derivative of a proven design, that incrementally improved capabilities. #2 The F-22 utilized a artificial workshare arrangement where the key partners undertook development and production tasks without taking advantage of their pre-existing knowledge bases. The F/A-18E was built using established contracting practices and using a tested production line utilized by the the legacy hornet. # 3: The amount of funds set aside for possible delays and issues was abnormally low for the F-22 (2% of contract value), compared to the Super Hornet (10%). You can read them here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG276.html Edited November 7, 2011 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Sure... Basically they chalked up the cost difference between the two fighters to three major factors. #1 Revolutionary vs Evolutionary performance platforms. The F-22 attempted to incorporate immature technologies during development, which caused delays and cost overruns. The Super hornet was a low risk derivative of a proven design, that incrementally improved capabilities. #2 The F-22 utilized a artificial workshare arrangement where the key partners undertook development and production tasks without taking advantage of their pre-existing knowledge bases. The F/A-18E was built using established contracting practices and using a tested production line utilized by the the legacy hornet. # 3: The amount of funds set aside for possible delays and issues was abnormally low for the F-22 (2% of contract value), compared to the Super Hornet (10%). You can read them here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG276.html I just read the summary. There were 8 bullets of recommendations. The first one is: Early, realistic cost and schedule estimates set the program on the right path for the rest of the development program. It doesn't look like that the JSF program followed any of the 8 recommendations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I just read the summary. There were 8 bullets of recommendations. The first one is: Early, realistic cost and schedule estimates set the program on the right path for the rest of the development program. It doesn't look like that the JSF program followed any of the 8 recommendations. I disagree that it failed to do all of them. These are the ones I think it succeeded with. #2 A stable development team structure, proper team expertise, clear lines of responsibility and authority, and a lead contractor responsible for overall program progress are critical to success. IF anything that defines the structure, particularly since Venlet was installed. The best value contracts basically ensured that some of the best subcontractors in the western world would be a part of the program. #4 Reducing the cost and risk of avionics should be a key focus of the concept development phase. Avionics is a considerable cost driver of modern weapon systems, and new concepts should be demonstrated along with the new airframe designs—that is, during early development rather than after Milestone II/B. Given the F-35's ambitious objectives with sensor fusion, I think they have done a fairly good job on this front. Having studied the F-22's architecture, the difference between the two programs is night and day. If anything the F-22's architecture is like the F-14's in comparison to the F/A-18E. #5 Preplanned, evolutionary modernization of high-risk avionics can reduce risk and help control costs and schedules. It is impor- tant to recognize the speed of developments in the electronics industry, especially compared to the airframe or engine industry, and to develop a plan to stay current during development. And I think the JSF has attempted to do that with the block structure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kozlok Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Well, the key difference is that when you lick an F-14, you get a furball, while with the F-18, you get welts on your tongue. That's really the important bit. All that other stuff, not so much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The F-35 will replace the legacy F-18 first and then the Super Hornet eventually, in another 10-15 years. Actually, F/A-XX is the designated Super Hornet replacement. That said, I'm sure the AoA will include a "continue JSF" option in their analysis. HTH Spongebob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Actually, F/A-XX is the designated Super Hornet replacement. That said, I'm sure the AoA will include a "continue JSF" option in their analysis. HTH Spongebob Out of curiosity, could the F/A-XX be a UAV? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
big fatty Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is inaccurate. The F-14 was an amazing weapons platform. It had alot more going for it than just carryng the AIM-54. You might want to check your facts first before trying to do a comparison you have no true knowledge about. F-14 was a great dog fighter as well. Did you see how it took out those Zeros in The Final Countdown. ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I didn't read the entire thread, but from reading the first few posts I had to chuckle. It's funny how Tomcat supporters get so defensive about an airplane they like. So what? No one is saying you can't like it. Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VFA-103guy Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) F-14 was a great dog fighter as well. Did you see how it took out those Zeros in The Final Countdown. ;) Edited November 8, 2011 by VFA-103guy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.