F-14 and F/A-18E

[AirRyan]

I too have heard stories where guys who's father and their fathers flew in the Chair Force but when it came time for them to decide whether they wanted to go that route, their glad they took a different route. Todays AF pilots just aren't like they used to be.

New joke with the SSN-23 Jimmy Carter - you report for duty on a 6 month "cruise" with $100 in your pocket in case your lucky enough to get a port call or want to buy something at the ship store, but at the end of your deployment that $100 is only worth about $25 to compensate for the Jimmy Carter economics lesson!

The Marines should never have been allowed to continue the V-22 program after all the hiccups that platform has had - and it's appalling to think they could have replaced their Phrogs 2x over by now with a more than capable medium lift helo (US-101 or MH-60S) for the amount of money wasted on that program thus far, and that's not even taking into account paying for the airframes should the program ever be approved for full rate production!

A lot of good that extra speed is going to be when you get to the hot LZ and your Cobra escorts are way back there, and the two .50 cals you used to have on your elderly Phrogs are gone because they had no firing arcs on the Ospreys! The aircraft will give a whole new meaning to the Marines fabled term "Hurry up and wait!"

The Marines would be wise to replace their EA-6B's with EA-18G and F/A-18D's with Block II F/A-18F's. I don't buy single seat FAC(A) very well, either - if you want the job done right that is. Maybe with the Marines funds going into the SH fiasco, they could fund the GE proposed increased thrust variants of the F414 which would not only give them more thrust but also a little better fuel burn and the two seat Super Bugs might actually turn into decent platforms!

 

[zippy]

Flash, great article... I remember when a Harrier squad UDP to Iwakuni was grounded virtually the whole time they were there because of some problem with their engine. Got so bad that they were considering boxing them up and loading them on a ship to send them back to the states to fix the problem...

 

[Fly Navy]

The Marines should never have been allowed to continue the V-22 program after all the hiccups that platform has had

I guess the Navy should have never been allowed to continue the F-14 program when it did, according to your logic.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

What is a Block II F/A-18F?

I can field this one... the Block II models have the extended forward fuselage to incorporate the APG-79 AESA radar, whereas the Block I's are using the APG-73. I guess they have some changes in the WSO station in the back as well as a new datalink, but I wouldn't really know too much bout that...

As far as the other questions... good hunting... I hear a lot of Tomcat guys who are bitter about losing their Mach 2+ speed, but if that makes the Rhino a 'fiasco'... well, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

[Brett327]

Mmmmmmm...AESA

Meat, you have any recent info on that? Last I knew, the initial buy for the G model has the 73, but I've heard rumblings that AESA might eventually be bought.

Brett

 

[AirRyan]

Every aviation program has endured its share of problems, but the V-22 takes the cake. The only thing it has over comparable medium lift helos is top speed - range and payload are all roughly the same and the maintenance can only be better. I've already heard some stupid things the aero engineers did with the Osprey like putting the battery in the overhead compartment.

Spending all the money on the V-22 Osprey (nearly as much as what has been spent on the F-22!) so it can get to the LZ a little quicker than a conventional helo can for what?!! What good is the extra speed of the Osprey if they outrun the attack helos (AH-1Z and UH-1Y) that the Corps is spending a lot of money to upgrade?! "Hurry up and wait" takes on a whole new meaning!

I have heard one top Marine General, I'm not sure if it was the new CMC or one of the top Air Wing Generals, but he has recently said that he wants to explore a gunship version of the V-22 so as to provide cover fire for the Ospreys that outrun the Cobras, Hueys and '53 Echo's!!!!! As it is now, the V-22's will be going into the front lines minus the two .50 cals the flight crews used to have on their CH-46's because there is no place for the guns on the Osprey!!!

With equal loads it can't fly any farther than modern helos like the US-101 or S-92, (the Osprey backers have been using it's max endurance using aerial refueling range for most of the media reports,) and from what I hear it's inherent vortex stalls prevent it from coming into an a hot LZ at the same rapid descent rate that helo pilots pioneered in Vietnam so as to save their skin. You simply cannot fly the Osprey like you do a helo and that's not good when you have to take it behind enemy lines and risk getting shot at.

I'd be a lot more content with the V-22 if the Corps was buying about half as many as they are, but to replace their most numerous aircraft type, the workhorse of their aviation fleet with such a gimmick of technology, when more proven, reliable, and cost effective platforms are available that can meet the mission just as well is not the wisest of decisions.

About the Super Bug, I'm just a big Tomcat fan and think the way Cheney cut the F-14 program when the Navy wanted it and Congress had it all approved was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Navy. The Super Hornet was a program that was then bypassed through Congress because it couldn't hack a competitive decision and well, McDD needed the business.

I like the F/A-18F alright mostly due to the level of technology that we are able to stuff into it, and because it retains the tandem two person pits that the F-4's started and the F-14's made famous. Other than that, it's an uninspiring aerodynamic platform that cannot even outperform the platform it is replacing. Sure, don't take the fight low and slow, especially with AIM-9X and JMHCS, but the motto for fighter pilots has long been "speed is life" and well, the SH only works well in the slow speed arena; it doesn't have the speed or acceleration to dictate a fight against a Su or a EF. But hey, add in the forthcoming next gen AMRAAMs that are claiming to have a 50% increase in range over current gen AMRAAMs, then the Super Hornet and it's super-sexy APG-79 AESA will get us by, but I dare to imagine what an upgraded Tomcat with it's production line having been allowed to stay open and complete that 392 new build order Congress approved at the request of the Navy, could have been like.

http://www.cbd-net.com/index.php/search/show/735091

I'm not sure where the program now stands, if recent budget cuts are any indication the program was long since put on the shelf, but here is a document showing in 2001 where the funds were allocated to GE to see what they could do, key word being "could" as in if the funds were ever allocated. 15% more thrust and 3-4% greater efficiency would be worth the cost over the life of the aircraft, in my opinion but I'm not counting the beans on Capital Hill. From what I understand the technology comes from the lessons learned while working on the JSF GE F136 engine.

GE IR&D funds were leveraged to complete aerodynamic design of an advanced energy efficient compressor for the GE23a demonstrator engine. This compressor is sized to provide the airflow needed for a growth F414 engine (+15% thrust, 3-4% improved efficiency) for the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The Energy Program previously funded design of the high-pressure turbine, fan and advanced control system software.

www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2003/NAVY/0603724N.pdf

There was an article about a year ago in AvLeak that showed the mockup of the rear pit of a Block II F/A-18F, it's better and more advanced than what Echo Eagle WSO's have. Here's a good synopsis from globalsecurity.org that sums up the differences in the Super Hornet Blocks as of now. I have the pictures of the pit from the article I scanned somewhere if anyone is interested.

F/A-18 E/F aircraft through Lot 25 are all Block 1 aircraft. Beginning with Lot 26 (FY03), production transitioned to Block 2 with a re-designed forward fuselage and provisions to incorporate Block 2 equipment including Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Advanced Crew Station (ACS), 8x10 Display, Fiber Channel Network Switch, and Digital Video Map Computer. Advanced Mission Computers and Displays (AMC&D) upgrades the mission computers from an assembly language based system to an open architecture higher order language and were introduced beginning with Lot 25.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm

 

[AirRyan]

What are you specifically referring to UInavy? I'm not claiming to be an expert of anything and please, correct me if I'm wrong but I have not read a whole lot of unbiased (read not coming from Boeing's PR) about the positive performance of the Super Hornet. AvLeak is far from a reliable source simply because the majority of the info they talk about is subject to constant change, but I don't see any inaccuracies with the report of which I am referring to on the subject at hand.

The Super Bug is a fine air show demonstrator but put a combat load on it, including the mandatory centerline external fuel tank (at least, more like three externals to get into the range of the GE powered Tomcats or an Intruder) and it's a flying brick. It still doesn't get the range it was at first touted to (or that of a GE powered Tomcat or Intruder could do,) but that is nothing new as McDD engineers evidently were using the wrong mathematical formula when calculating range and fuel burn - (see the MD-11 for that story,) and legacy Hornets can still out-turn and climb Super Hornets because their wing doesn't produce as much drag as what the new wing on the Super Hornets does. I'm sure you’re well aware with all the problems Boeing has had with the new wing, more drag, less lift, and wing drop for example. The Navy has already re-written their own doctrine bringing the carriers closer to the shore so the lesser ranged Super Hornets can hit their targets. The Navy had no such problem when Grumman Intruders and Tomcats were on the job.

Super Hornets tanking in the Gulf War:
http://shns.abc15.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=IRAQ-AIRWAR-05-01-03&cat=LL

I know there are a lot of pilots on this thread and I only turned the wrenches on the Phrogs, so I'm just your average layman when it comes to firsthand knowledge but I just have never been impressed with the Super Bug's history from conception to it's current form. When the fleet gets all of them upgraded to Block II status, AIM-9X w/ JMHCS, and AMRAAM 120-C8 and/or D, the Super Bug will work but I'd rather modernize a tandem twin seat Su-33 and put GE engines, Western avionics and ordinance under it from the standpoint of the basic airframe if I had a choice between that and Super Bugs.

Remember that the Hornet was originally designed from the losing member of the Lightweight Fighter Competition (LWF) as a low cost fighter platform specializing in nothing but able to perform both A/A and A/G, (hence the F/A) to help offset the skyrocketing costs of the F-14 (and the LWF for the F-15 - Jimmy Carter economics, what else can I say?!) All they did with the Super Hornet is take a cheap airframe and blow it up 30% thinking it would cure all the ills of the original product such as range and payload (bring back to the ship.)

Look at the level of advancement the F-14 and F-15 made over the F-4, one of the most successful airframes in history - can you honestly say the Super Hornet airframe has made equal strides over the Tomcats that it is replacing? If one single foreign nation buys the Super Hornet I will be amazed - as long as you don't have a full sized carrier why buy an F/A-18F when you can have a F-15E/K?!

Other than being new, a cool pit full of the latest high tech goodies (most of which we shouldn't export anyways,) and the line still open so parts are readily available, the Super Hornet is just not that great advancement in aerial supremacy that the US Navy deserves to have.

 

[A4sForever]

... The Super Bug is a fine air show demonstrator but put a combat load on it, including the mandatory centerline external fuel tank (at least, more like three externals to get into the range of the GE powered Tomcats or an Intruder) and it's a flying brick ...... The Navy has already re-written their own doctrine bringing the carriers closer to the shore so the lesser ranged Super Hornets can hit their targets. The Navy had no such problem when Grumman Intruders and Tomcats were on the job.

Uh-oh ... the secret's out !! :icon_wink

ROGER BALL !!

 

[A4sForever]

the F-5 aggressor squadrons do it all the time ... 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

Yes, P's&G's are always good, wish we had them "back in the day". But we never had or availed ourselves of GCI/AIC ... -- we were the "bad guys"; Reservists with red stars on our helmets and tails. We just "bent" the rules to our advantage and used "smarter" tactics against the pretty-boys in their prettier airplanes who WERE using GCI/AIC. Really ticked them off when we would pop-up and shoot them in the belly.

"Guns Kill ... :eyebrows_ Fight's over ... :hot_125:

ROGER BALL !!

 

[skidkid]

The F-5 guys hate it when I dont pop up and then shoot them in the belly anyway. give me an Aim-9m-8 and I become a very mobile very hard to see SAM platform that can bring a nose to bear faster than any Jet. However if I ever take my Cobra air to air in a shooting war then every jet guy I know should be fired on the spot

 

[AirRyan]

I would imagine that with the new Thales helmets on Zulu Cobras that with a -9X you could ruin anyones day!

 

[Piperpilot2004]

http://www.flightlevel350.com/picwindow.php?cat=28&pic=990&bottom=1

check this out! I never have seen this clip of the F/A-18F doing Mach 1 then going up through the clouds..short vid but pretty sweet!

 

[vegita1220]

This is the engi-nerd coming out in me, but that's not actually Mach 1. Those are the compression waves forming on leading edges that lead up to the sound barrier. Real close , but not quite there.

AirRyan-Did you read that article you posted? It talked about how the Rhino dropped more pound of ordnance than any other airframe on the Lincoln while doubling with tanker duty. That seems pretty impressive to me. As far as your comments about adding a combat load to it degrading the performance, that's a characteristic that every airframe has when you start hanging stuff from the bottom of it. That's why there's a jettison option if you absolutely need it.

I've seen a VERY impressive video of a Super Hornet with a "full combat load." And it looked pretty fat and full to me, but it still was hauling ass pretty impressively. I'd like to see how much better it is loaded light.

 

[AirRyan]

Actually, the numbers of pounds dropped were nearly identical.

F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets, with sophisticated electronic, payload and range improvements, were deployed in combat for the first time aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The inaugural Super Hornet squadron, VFA-115, was deployed aboard Lincoln, while VFA-14 and VFA-41 were part of Carrier Air Wing 11 on Nimitz. In early April, two F/A-18E’s from VFA-14 and two F/A-18Fs from VFA-41 flew 4,000 miles ahead of Nimitz, landing aboard Lincoln to augment Carrier Air Wing 14.
The addition of four Super Hornets aboard Lincoln provided a flexible mix of fighter support and tanker capability to support coalition forces on the ground in Iraq. A unique aspect of OIF was the mid-mission adaptability of carrier-based strike aircraft.

http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/pages/oif.htm

VF-31 F-14D Tomcatters
The squadron deployed again in July of 2002, operating over Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and again over the skies of Iraq supporting Southern Watch. In their return home VF-31 and indeed the entire battlegroup was turned around on the 1st of January to ready the stage for the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Flying from the first night of combat over Baghdad to the last day of the short war, VF-31 was individually responsible for delivering more than 230,000 tons of ordnance with a 94.7% target acquisition and destruction rate to targets generally located in Baghdad and the southern vicinities in direct support of coalition forces That target acquisition and destruction rate was the highest recorded in the history of aviation. In that deployment VF-31 had the dubious distinction of having the longest cruise in the last 30 years of the Navy's illustrious history, and happily returned immediately following the war and arriving in Oceana on the 2nd of May, 2003. Today, with a deep sense of pride in their accomplishments and the rich history that Felix represents, the Tomcatters of Fighter Squadron THIRTY ONE are ready to meet the challenge placed upon them. Felix Rules!

http://members.cox.net/vf31web/history.html

VFA-115 Eagles
In July 2002, the Eagles embarked on the first ever Super Hornet combat deployment. Their performance was nearly flawless, flying 214 combat missions in support of “Operation Enduring Freedom” and “Operation Southern Watch” with a 100% combat sortie completion rate. The Eagles dropped 22 JDAM on 14 targets in OSW with total success, earning them CVW-14s Battle E nomination and earning the Super Hornet respect among the Strike Fighter community. This reputation would be put to the test in March 2003, as the Eagles took part in the opening salvos of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Before hostilities ceased and victory declared on April 9, 2003, the Eagles dropped 380,000 pounds of ordinance and passed three and a half million pounds of fuel in the tanker support role. This outstanding wartime performance earned the Eagles and the Lincoln Battle Group the Navy Unit Commendation (the sixth awarded to VFA-115), and was the crowning achievement in a record-breaking nine and a half month cruise.

http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-115/eaglehistory.html


The Tomcatters took to sea with 10 F-14D airframes, while the Eagles took to sea with 12 BRAND NEW F/A-18E's. Now, let's add on the four Rhino's from CVW-11 on the Nimitz, and we had 16 brand new Rhino's to 10 F-14D Tomcats.

According to their own official websites, VF-31 dropped 230,000lbs. of ordinance while VFA-115 dropped 380,000lbs. of ordinance. Do the math, that's 23,000lbs of ordinance per Tomcat for VF-31 at ten airframes and 23,750lbs. of ordinance per Rhino for VFA-115 at 16 airframes when you include the tanking duties, for like a whopping 3.2% difference in favor of the Rhino. When you take into account that the Turkey line has been closed since 1991 and was based on 1960's technology and compare that to the latest in technology with a line still open on brand new airframes, you can hardly say that the Rhino's "out performed" the Tomcats. I'd like to see the mileage numbers between the two cross-referenced with the number of pounds of ordinance dropped per the pound of gas burned - GE powered Tomcats win that battle.

As far as drag is concerned, I am sure you are well aware with the inherent fundamental flaws of the Super Hornet airframe such as drag and weight that they have had to overcome since it's inception, but with the Tomcat you have what is referred to as the "tunnel" - the are between the engine nacelles where you have 4 hard points, originally designed for the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The Iranians soon realized as far back as the late '70's that they could sling 2 instead of 4 in the tunnel and suffer virtually no difference in flight performance. As I am sure VF-31 will attest to, they could sling A/G ordinance in the tunnel and suffer virtually no drag penalty where as everything that goes onto the Rhino is right there bucking the wind. It has been shown where GE powered Tomcats can sling 4 Mk-82's in the tunnel with 4 AAM's and the two externals and still carry that same payload than the F/A-18F can.

All I am saying is that the Super Hornet is not giving the Navy a full return on the taxpayers money as say the F-14 did during it's lifetime, especially in the service of the IRIAF against Iraq, or giving the respective service a level of advancement in superiority/performance like what the F-22 gives the Air Force, or even what the F-14/F-15 did over the F-4 when they came online.

Look at all them beautiful sortie marks!

 

[AirRyan]

I've seen a VERY impressive video of a Super Hornet with a "full combat load." And it looked pretty fat and full to me, but it still was hauling ass pretty impressively. I'd like to see how much better it is loaded light.

That was most likely the video from the RAAF airshow that Boeing put on for them. No doubt the SH's forteit is in the slow-speed regime, but as a fighter pilot that's not usually where I would want to be.