F-14 and F/A-18E

[A4sForever]

In the interest of peace and love ....Admiral John Nathman, a former VF-213 Blacklion F-4 driver and shipmate, when Director, Naval Air Warfare Division in early 2000, said of the F/A-18E/F:

....what does the Super Hornet bring to this Navy's mission, the expeditionary mission? .....(a) much extended range in endurance. In the interdiction mode, which I think the airplane will be operated in frequently from our flight decks in support of a joint task force commander, it brings about a 40 percent increase in range, as compared to the Hornet that we have on our flight decks today, and that means much expanded target set coverage. It also brings about basically a 50 percent increase in on-station time for battlefield area interdiction and for close-air support. That's critically important. Besides the number of weapons it'll have on board, it's important for that Marine commander or for that Army commander to have the dwell time, as well as the ability to destroy targets, but have the dwell time out there for that aircraft.

The other thing that I think the airplane brings that we have not had for a while, it will bring the capability in this increased payload to bring about a mission tanker back to our flight decks. We've not had a mission tanker on our flight decks in numbers since we decommissioned the KA-6s, and as you know, we migrated that mission to the S-3. It's a capable tanker around the ship for safety; it does not meet our needs as a mission tanker. Now, this airplane (F/A-18 E/F) has the ability to carry an immense amount of gas, more than the S-3 in almost all configurations, and it matches the profiles of the strike groups to optimize their range, in addition to the extended range we buy with the aircraft itself. So I think what we're doing now is we're going to be able to put back a mission tanker on our flight decks. (Note: a.k.a. the F/A-18 E/F)

John always was a good guy, so I will take his word on this ...

ROGER BALL !!

 

[Brett327]

I know this won't be popular, but as I've stated before, IMHO the Marines have no business operating fixed wing A/C. I can not recall a bigger, more agonizing series of cluster f*cks than trying to plan anything with the Marines. Let the flames begin!

Brett

 

[HooverPilot]

Ok, my entire point was that anything a squadron does for 40% of their deployed time MUST be one of their "core" or primary mission area's. I am sure that there isn't anything else that they did for 40% of their time. I'm sure it was split up among Air to Air/Air to Ground, etc, but I am willing to bet none of that was for 40% of their time. Tanking is not flashy and like A4's it sure sucks to hawk at night, but that is still one of those things that we have to do. Only 2 things will keep an airwing from getting their blue water cert iduring workups, bad performance around the boat and bad tankers.

 

[KBayDog]

I know this won't be popular, but as I've stated before, IMHO the Marines have no business operating fixed wing A/C. I can not recall a bigger, more agonizing series of cluster f*cks than trying to plan anything with the Marines. Let the flames begin!

Brett

I completely agree. (BTW, how can I get an F/A-18 slot?)

I also agree that the squids have no business operating firearms, the hooahs have no business operating prisons, and the zoomies have no business operating a rank structure. :icon_smil


(Brett - The Flames cannot begin. Neither can any other team. The commish cancelled the season, bubba )

 

[Flash]

I was always C-R-A-P

Proof that spell check doesn't catch everything .

Marines typically do things on the cheap. They'll wait until all the OT&E is done and the bugs worked out before they commit funds.

Mostly true, but they also have enough political pull to get what they want. They were able to make the JSF be V/STOL capable, a huge problem for the designers and a very costly one too. I saw a lengthy documentary on PBS about, a lot of the focus was on the V/STOL version. Sure, the Royal Navy (and the RAF to a lesser degree) had some pull but they had not decided on whether or not they were going to order the V/STOL or CV version yet. They have also kept the V-22 alive even after SECDEF Cheney tried to get it killed, that doesn't happen too often.

The Marines also do some funny stuff to make sure they get enough money. When I was out in Iwakuni as part of MAG-12, we were getting partial per diem, about $40 a day. The other Marine squadrons were only getting $9 a day while they were in Iwakuni. Why? I was told by several guys in the other squadrons that the Marine Corps was getting the per diem, they were just using it for other things. Where did the money go? My guess would be O&M.

looks to me like the Marines are getting an F-18 version (G model)?

Who said the Marines are going to replace the Prowler? They have lost most of their operational control of their Prowlers for several years now, why do you think I was in Iwakuni filling in for a Marine squadron? With today's bugetary pressures I could see the specialized mission of the Prowler being cut in the USMC, it is not a core mission.

John always was a good guy, so I will take his word on this

I thought that once someone gets inside the Beltway they lose all common sense, or is that just in my case?

 

[A4sForever]

I was always C-R-A-P
Proof that spell check doesn't catch everything .

Spell-check, smell-check. See the way this posts/reads now ... ??? It's all smoke, mirrors, and shades of grey, Flash-man.

... Who's sorry now ... ???

 

[zab1001]

A better question...who is Connie Francis.....ZING

 

[skidkid]

don't know how the squids are doing it, but a FAC(A) training syllabus for single seat Marine Corps Hornets is in the works, should be implemented soon. can't wait, WSO's say it can't be done by single seaters, yet air farce A-10's & F-16's have been doing it for years ....

It doesn't mean they do it well. The Air Force has always had an aversion to Nav's and anything without a pointy nose. They would rather look cool than do the right thing sometimes. Just look at what happened with Wild Weasels, they go from a two seat F-4G with a sophisticated and integrated SEAD system to an F-16 with a pod, and lost a lot of capability in the process.

also, i talked with a SH dude a few months ago that said the next Lot of SH's will have a weapons employment switch in the back for the WSO's to use? any word on that? when that happens, who buys the bombs if they hit the wrong target? the PIC or the WSO who dropped them? hmm, i'll stick to single seat ...

Afraid of a FO showing you up? Or is it just a control thing?

how much more gas does the E have over the F? i'll take the extra gas anyday, IMO

Why don't we just get rid of the pilot altogether so we have even more gas? I am a firm believer of the saying "two heads is better than one". Of course I am biased, I am a FO, while you are just a FAG (Fighter Attack Guy).

Ok Im going to jump on this one since FAC(A) is near and dear to my heart. The airforce does it but it is not FAC(A) like we as MArines think of it is more SCAR and it takes a section to do it, one guy manages the stack while the otehr handles terminal control. A FAC(A) needs to be able to use artillery control f/w and rotors all at once I dont care who you are you cant do all that and fly a survivable profile all at once. Ever been sent beak to beak with someone in a CAS stack, that is the first thing that goes when people get task saturated. I am very much on board with single seat guys being SCAR managers when their arent friendlies in close proximity. In fact whne doing SCAR I would rather have the Harriers just load gas and a litening pod and stick around for a while. We'll see whrer this goes but I cant see MAWTS going for it

 

[USN99]

About that Beltway comment

I thought that once someone gets inside the Beltway they lose all common sense, or is that just in my case?

My observation is that they don't lose common sense, but common sense gets a mighty big beat-down once you set foot inside the Beltway. When you get inside the Beltway and come to the nauseating realization that all seapower begins there and all power is in direct proportion to budget (size does matter), you then get a second psychological shock. Congress holds the purse strings, i.e., all the bucks upon which Buck Rogers relies are supplied by the Legislative Branch. And one might think that they had escaped that civics lesson decades ago and were insulated from it with that 100th trap. Nope, it's an awful reality.

Good grief, even the Rep. or Senator that sounds like they are pro-Defense is really pro-Defense as it pertains to DoD bucks flowing to their district or State. When I hear an Admiral call attention to the merits of the SH E/F vs the original Hornet, I am thinking that they speaketh the truth but selectively. All Hornets are essentially spawn of budgetary pressure not mission requirements. The range/payload and weapons capabilities being given up with the retirements of the A-6 and F-14 are not being replicated with any budgetary spawn. That the SH E/F is better than the original Hornet is not much of a statement. The SH is also better than the Cougar, the Scooter, and the Fruit Fly.

Moreover, I remain to be persuaded that any increase in either the number or capability of precison weapons can ever justify going below 12 carriers. Carriers are not entirely free from political constraints because their logistical tails usually rely upon a host nation cooperating somewhere along the line. But they are largely free of political constraints, more so than any USAF base might be. The CNO seems an honorable person and he is following the President's budgetary plan which allows for mothballing the Kennedy. He can't say anything else. I'm sure his common sense recognizes that mothballing the 12th carrier is not a mission statement, it's a budget balancing act.

After all this financial blather, I remain a SH E/F & G fan; hope the best for a rapid replacement of the original Hornets by the JSF. And the Growler is just simply one of the the highest forms common sense. Bombs are good but so are electrons.

 

[A4sForever]

The SH is also better than the .... the Scooter .....

......I remain to be persuaded that any increase in either the number or capability of precison weapons can ever justify going below 12 carriers.

AMEN (!!) to the latter, AHEM (*) to the former.

the Latter: With maintenance, turnarounds, PEOPLE, and so forth, how can we be everywhere, all the time with less than 12 decks .... ???

the Former: If I had a dime for every time I "beat" an F'ing/A-18 in my rusty, leaky, wheezy old Scooter using "smart(er)" tactics, good eyesight, and "luck", I would have at least a $2.45 in my pocket. The point being, if I could do it, so can some Gomer (Pyle) somewhere, using a lot less $$$$ than a S/H costs ... Check your six ....

Really good insight, USN --- and well said.

 

[jarhead]

jarhead- more gas than you guys buy a bunch. E vs. F is about 1K difference. No on the ILS compatibility. See PM for details I don't want to post for all the world (i.e. a 11th grader to lecture me on how it differs from what he read in Air Power Monthly)

thanks for answers
----------

Afraid of a FO showing you up? Or is it just a control thing?

nope, nothing against WSO's, i have some pretty good WSO friends, and i've met some pretty damn smart ones too, helluvalot smarter than me ... i just like the extra ~800# of gas and being the pilot in command, not the "pilot by committee"
----------

OK, some (not all) Marine Squadrons have F/A-18A's. On my 2003 cruise, VMFA-314 had the latest and greatest Block 18 Hornets while the Navy guys had a mix of Blocks 11/14/15.

majority of the Corps A's have been updated to the A+ and have been in the Corps since we bought them 15+ years ago ... most of the C's, including the higher Lot C's, are hand-me-downs that the Navy trapped out and had to swap out with Marine older Lot C's and A's that have never been to the boat ... if the squids would quit bag'n traps, they wouldn't be having this problem.
----------

I know this won't be popular, but as I've stated before, IMHO the Marines have no business operating fixed wing A/C. I can not recall a bigger, more agonizing series of cluster f*cks than trying to plan anything with the Marines. Let the flames begin!

huh? have you ever worked with the US Air Farce? now those guys are the most agonizing uptight inflexible cluster f*cks i have ever flown around! anyways, the Corps has had fixed wing aviation from the beginning, right there along side the Squids, so why stop now? i'll throw this out though, the Corps does a lot of things half ass due to fiscal contraints, i.e. do more with less, but aviation is not one of those things you can do more with less (we've been doing it forever, and thats why we always have the highest mishap rate) ... if the Corps can't do aviation right, then we should get out of it.
----------

The Marines also do some funny stuff to make sure they get enough money. When I was out in Iwakuni as part of MAG-12, we were getting partial per diem, about $40 a day. The other Marine squadrons were only getting $9 a day while they were in Iwakuni. Why? I was told by several guys in the other squadrons that the Marine Corps was getting the per diem, they were just using it for other things. Where did the money go? My guess would be O&M.

sigh its true, and they still do it, including the Squid enlisted guys, while the Marines on UDP gets $9 ... at least the Marine enlisted guys get a meal card to go along with their 9 bucks a day ... and it's not just MAG-12 that does it, MAG-31 did it to us on one particular Det ... it's un-f*ckin-believable, money we rate, by law, but they find reasons (excuses) to keep it for other things ...
----------

Ok Im going to jump on this one since FAC(A) is near and dear to my heart. The airforce does it but it is not FAC(A) like we as MArines think of it is more SCAR and it takes a section to do it, one guy manages the stack while the otehr handles terminal control. A FAC(A) needs to be able to use artillery control f/w and rotors all at once I dont care who you are you cant do all that and fly a survivable profile all at once. Ever been sent beak to beak with someone in a CAS stack, that is the first thing that goes when people get task saturated. I am very much on board with single seat guys being SCAR managers when their arent friendlies in close proximity. In fact whne doing SCAR I would rather have the Harriers just load gas and a litening pod and stick around for a while. We'll see whrer this goes but I cant see MAWTS going for it

your right, A-10's & F-16's do SCAR, but they call it FAC(A), so they get invited to the "big shows" ... unless single seat Hornets are deployed on the Boat, they aren't invited, because, as in Afghan & Iraq, one of the requirements usually needed is FAC(A), and we don't have that qual, so they don't need us there. MAWTS has already bought into it, but it'll be more of a SCAR thing that's called FAC(A), i'm told ... it's suppose to be added to the Hornet T&R syllabus soon ... don't know about the Harrier but i'd assume it'll be the same.
----------

If I had a dime for every time I "beat" an F'ing/A-18 in my rusty, leaky, wheezy old Scooter using "smart(er)" tactics, good eyesight, and "luck", I would have at least a $2.45 in my pocket. The point being, if I could do it, so can some Gomer (Pyle) somewhere, using a lot less $$$$ than a S/H costs

the F-5 aggressor squadrons do it all the time against Hornets, and anybody else they fight, but take away their GCI/AIC and they are arching around out there with nowhere to go ... would guess it's the same way for your A-4, or that Gomer out there in his Mig-19/21 ... guess we need Prowlers & Growlers for something i suppose

S/F

 

[USN99]

Human evolution

nope, nothing against WSO's, i have some pretty good WSO friends, and i've met some pretty damn smart ones too, helluvalot smarter than me ... i just like the extra ~800# of gas and being the pilot in command, not the "pilot by committee"

Someone in this forum signs off with the adage "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Jarhead's personal observations about WSOs seems to confirm this.

In spite of decades of naval aviation excellence in various multi-seat platforms, some just don't seem to allow their craniums to expand beyond what they can control with the stick between their legs.

From the Airwings I had experience with, with the exception of Focs'le Follies, there was no evidence, not even anecdotal, about "pilot by committee". That may have been possible in 60's vintage USAF Phantoms but the Navy was and is always well in advance of those neanderthals.

And the comment about the extra gas, suggest elevate field of view above navel. Gas is life is a salient truth. But the reason for the gas is to perform the mission. Mission profiles are hugely variable and some proportion of those mission profiles simply over-tax what one homo sapiens can handle in order to meet the tactical, operational, and possibly strategic goals of the force commander.

If someone's intellectual horizons are confined to the stick between their legs, then their limits are clearly within reach. Maybe the merge of USMC and USN Tac Air will result in some evolutionary advances in the former.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

That may have been possible in 60's vintage USAF Phantoms but the Navy was and is always well in advance of those neanderthals.

Well, there's a reason why EVERY Chair Force F-15E and B-1 WSO is Navy-trained from start to wings.

Having a weapons selector switch in the back is nothing new. The F-14 RIOs had it-- in fact, at least one of the Libyan Sukhois was shot down by the backseater pulling the trigger.

 

[Brett327]

thanks for answers
----------

huh? have you ever worked with the US Air Farce? now those guys are the most agonizing uptight inflexible cluster f*cks i have ever flown around! anyways, the Corps has had fixed wing aviation from the beginning, right there along side the Squids, so why stop now? i'll throw this out though, the Corps does a lot of things half ass due to fiscal contraints, i.e. do more with less, but aviation is not one of those things you can do more with less (we've been doing it forever, and thats why we always have the highest mishap rate) ... if the Corps can't do aviation right, then we should get out of it.
S/F

As a matter of fact, I have had the displeasure of doing LOTS of flying w/ the USAF. Yeah, they're all a bunch of uptight homos, but at least they can plan and execute a strike I'll stick with my hyperbole. Flash? Any input?


Brett

 

[Flash]

As a matter of fact, I have had the displeasure of doing LOTS of flying w/ the USAF. Yeah, they're all a bunch of uptight homos, but at least they can plan and execute a strike I'll stick with my hyperbole. Flash? Any input?


Brett

Do I always like the way the AF does business? No, they drive me up the wall with some of the stuff they pull. They have some institutional bad habits, not liking anything that looks cool is one. It is very sad but true, just look at the abuse heaped upon the A-10 since it came into service. Another is their annoying habit of acting more like a business than a military service. With that being said, they generally do a fairly decent job at what they are suppose to do, wage war from the air (and space if you buy their propganda). Plus, they treat their people right in most cases. Finally, you have to admire a service with personnel who look like this:

http://www.chair-force.com/hotafchicks.htm

As for your Marine comments, a littel over the top (it is hyperbole though). USMC air does an admirable job of doing what they are suppose to do, support their Marines. They ain't the be all to end all that some of them think thay are. Much of Marine Tacair is not really controlled by them operationally anymore, they are just another line in the ATO or another Prowler squadron to rotate along with the others. That and the obession with all VTOL aircraft has cost them dearly over the years.

http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/la-harrier-day1.story

They are great to party with though...