Farewell VF-103

[Prime]

Oh, I'm not confused in the slightest.  The Navy is.  You don't replace air superiority fighters with mutli-role attackers.

Like others have said, if there is less of a need for an interceptor, and more of a need for multi-role attackers, then the move does make sense.

[ewilen]

Read the earlier threads, and if there's a point there which you feel hasn't been expressed, it would be interesting to hear it. So far I'm just seeing rehashes of the same comments, and I'm going to try to refrain from compounding the problem by rehashing my rebuttals.

But since this was a direct response to something I wrote, I'll respond:

As far as replacing the Tomcat with nothing, well, without a superior replacement, I'd order more F-14's to replace the old F-14 airframes. Namely F-14D's. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to do that than to totally redesign the Hornet into the Super Hornet and mass produce them.

Nope. When I write that the F-14 would have been replaced with nothing, I mean that it would have simply been retired--probably along with the aircraft carriers, as Congress would rightly ask why we're spending billions on knights of the air who can win jousting matches against enemy fighters but can't effectively project power where wars are won: on the ground.

[Zentrandude]

Frankly, the newer isnt always better.

dam right skippy. lets teach the young chicks on how much a mustang owns all jet air craft and alien starships that anoy jimmy carter.

[Noyhauser]

I dont understand the bitching going on. I mean regardless how much we complain/debate this issue, the US Navy isnt changing their minds. Yes, I agree the F-14 is by far superior in every aspects including bombing role over the F/A-18E/F. And who says the F-35 will be better? All we got to see is the prototype being used and Lockheed Martin won the contract. Doesnt mean jack until they do more testing.

The F-14 is an old design but the Hornet is too. The hornet was designed in the mid-70s. So they improved on the F/A-18 to give us the E/F version. They could have done it with the Tomcat. The only reason why we got the F/A-18E/F is b/c of the actual maintenance cost is less than a Tomcat. And to those who are saying the F-14 is too old and should give way to the Hornet, then are you saying we should give way the A-10 to the F-16 as the new CAS? Frankly, the newer isnt always better.

One point that hasn't been made that is most of your metrics for "performance" skews very heavily towards the tomcat, and in reality the F/A-18e/f is far superior to the F-14.Most of you look at pure performance, like speed, payload weight... thats all good... The tomcat may have a slight edge in these areas... but thats really debateable. It seems the F/A-18E/F is probably more maneuverable, but lets for arguments sake I'll say the F-14 is slightly better.

Where the F-14 loses any respect is in more important areas, maintenance

Currently for every hour of flightime the F-14 requires 33 hours of maintenance. not good.

The new F/A-18 requires 17 hours... effectively half the time in the shop... that may not seem very important but it is.

Less labour intensive airframes, allows you to keep your forces more active. In the case of the 18E vs the 14, you can fly double the ammount of sorties. That means you can have double the number of planes flying at one time. 2 more planes in a dogfight will mean far far more than some small performance advantage. It means you can drop double the amount of bombs on target, because you get that bonus sortie you never had with the F-14 while its sitting in the shop.

Also with 1/2 the maintenance costs, you can afford to buy twice the number of planes... meaning more units in the air.

Also the F/A18E is almost a brand new aircraft in everywhere it counts... especially upgradeble avionics. This allows for quicker replacement of obsolete technology, and keeping in pace with new technological advancements... like new weapons. The Tomcat would require difficult and expensive modifications to keep pace. Remember what I said, if we didn'trepace te 14, half of us would by crying about why the USN's mainline fighter is 35+ years off,

So really the F/A 18 is a far better than the F-14... just have to take it all into perspective.

[Druna Skass]

Also the F/A18E is almost a brand new aircraft in everywhere it counts... especially upgradeble avionics. This allows for quicker replacement of obsolete technology, and keeping in pace with new technological advancements... like new weapons. The Tomcat would require difficult and expensive modifications to keep pace. Remember what I said, if we didn'trepace te 14, half of us would by crying about why the USN's mainline fighter is 35+ years off,

So really the F/A 18 is a far better than the F-14... just have to take it all into perspective.

**Waits for someone to bring up the proposed Super Tomcat**

[hellohikaru]

But the Super Hornet is also a brand new aircraft with very little commonality with the Legacy Hornet. It would have cost much more to design the enlarge hornet than it would have to make a third generation Tomcat. The F-14 is already big and has the room for growth that the Hornet lacks. I guess this would have save cost since it only involves upgrading the airframe access panels, moving parts here and there.

Pretty much like how MiG-29A became MiG-29M.

If the Tomcat was allowed the engine and avionic upgrade that it deserves i don't see how it could have not met the multirole requirements like the Shortnet. Some of the F-14s didn't even have up to date EW gear during Desert Storm.

And a well-equipped Tarps F-14 is still a better recon platform than the Shortnet with similar equipment. But i know you are going to bring up the UAV thing again.

Look at the AF...no money to buy engine parts for the F-15 fleet but hav the resource to fund nonsense like the YAL-1 ABL and anti-missile defence shield.

Edited December 18, 2004 by hellohikaru

[ewilen]

But the Super Hornet is also a brand new aircraft with very little commonality with the Legacy Hornet. It would have cost much more to design the enlarge hornet than it would have to make a third generation Tomcat. The F-14 is already big and has the room for growth that the Hornet lacks. I guess this would have save cost since it only involves upgrading the airframe access panels, moving parts here and there.

To truly upgrade the Tomcat to state of the art would have required at least the ASF-14.

MATS claims the ASF-14 would have been cheaper than the Super Hornet program.

Aerospaceweb just says the ASF-14 would have been "the most expensive of Grumman's proposals by far".

Tomcat Alley says there was a feasibility study done by the Navy in 1994 which concluded that the ASF-14 was "unaffordable".

[Coota0]

I remember a quote from an F-14 pilot where he said something like the F-14 looks dangerous just sitting on the ground. The Hornet lacks that aura severly.

Since when has looking cool been a requirement for a Military weapon, there have been some ugly ass looking machines in service.

[Coota0]

But the Super Hornet is also a brand new aircraft with very little commonality with the Legacy Hornet. It would have cost much more to design the enlarge hornet than it would have to make a third generation Tomcat. The F-14 is already big and has the room for growth that the Hornet lacks. I guess this would have save cost since it only involves upgrading the airframe access panels, moving parts here and there.

It's a helluva lot harder to upgrade an airplane and decrease it's maintance cost than adding some new computers and mvoing around some panels.

[Noyhauser]

The legacy hornet was designed to be maintenance free... its as a light fighter. This was a major design aim of the original lightweight fighter program. The legacy hornet's maintenance time was 22h/hf... still quite exceptional compared to the 33 of the F-14 (although the 14 was probably lower at one time).

The 14 was initially designed at a time when maintenance was not a key concern. This became a concern after Vietnam.

Ensuring ease of maintenance starts from initial design. Panel placement, avionics design, ect. These changes are truly built into the airframe. Even if the design was upgraded, its difficult to see it reach the levels of the 18E

[mikeszekely]

Oh, I'm not confused in the slightest.  The Navy is.  You don't replace air superiority fighters with mutli-role attackers.

Like others have said, if there is less of a need for an interceptor, and more of a need for multi-role attackers, then the move does make sense.

I NEVER said that we don't need attackers. We definately need aircraft that can make precision strikes at ground targets. The need for attackers doesn't negate the need for interceptors or air superiority fighters. It is the job of the air superiority fighters to secure the skies and allow attackers to hit ground targets without worrying about being shot down by enemy interceptors. I do not believe such thinking is "Cold War mentality" either. The companies like Dassault and Mikoyan have a track record of being less than discerning about their customers. (A considerable portion of Iraq's air force was Mirages). It's not a stretch to imagine Rafales or Flankers in unfriendly forces.

"Multi-role" is exactly what we don't need. Multi-role is in the 90's and 00's what "Commonality" was in the 60's. It's a method of cutting costs by using one plane for more than one role/branch that works okay rather than use multiple planes more suited to specific situations. A "jack of all trades, master of none."

Personally, I'd rather my friends in the service had the best equipment possible. If government spending needs to be cut back, instead of taking it from defense, why not force polititcians to pay for limos themselves? They can certainly afford it with their ridiculous salaries.

[Noyhauser]

I NEVER said that we don't need attackers. We definately need aircraft that can make precision strikes at ground targets. The need for attackers doesn't negate the need for interceptors or air superiority fighters. It is the job of the air superiority fighters to secure the skies and allow attackers to hit ground targets without worrying about being shot down by enemy interceptors. I do not believe such thinking is "Cold War mentality" either. The companies like Dassault and Mikoyan have a track record of being less than discerning about their customers. (A considerable portion of Iraq's air force was Mirages). It's not a stretch to imagine Rafales or Flankers in unfriendly forces.

your argument is one that has been thrown up time and again, and really its a non starter. Sure countries can get their hands on Su-27, Rafale ect... but do they have the money to buy a E-2 behind it? the money to match the intensive air superiority training pilots recieve in the US? Do they have the experience and the traditions of the USN or USAF? Will they even have a sufficient number of planes? Its unlikely on all these counts. US air superiority is pretty much implied today. I'd be worried more about new generations of russian SAMs.

Personally, I'd rather my friends in the service had the best equipment possible. If government spending needs to be cut back, instead of taking it from defense, why not force polititcians to pay for limos themselves? They can certainly afford it with their ridiculous salaries.

Holy have you seen the defence budget today? 450 Billion dollars. And the military is stretched thin as it is, and is really not designed for the mission it needs to do, and people want to saddle it with more missions that really are obsolete and just waste more cash. Its time to look at priorities, and what you are proposing isn't one.

[Gammera]

If the Tomcat was allowed the engine and avionic upgrade that it deserves i don't see how it could have not met the multirole requirements like the Shortnet.

I have to say I LOVE the cat. That said it IS time to say good bye. You can't upgrade, sorry. The airframes are dying. Most of the A's (David H. correct me if I am wrong)still flying are limited to an ungodly low G load for a fighter. Why? The wing boxes are coming apart. The wing box IS the F-14. People this is not a B-52 that just flies at .75 mach and never pulls more then 1.5 g and will ive forever. This is a high performance fighter and it will die. The super cat with new built airframes was the only answer to keeping A cat in service. While I don't think the F/A-18 E/F is a worthy replacement even for the older hornets they are completly new airframes. Further more they are still smaller than a cat (kinda important on a carrier) needs less maintenance is a cheaper fighter. As a tax payer in the good ol' US of A I like a cheaper can do anything fighter ok, over a beloved and will be missed but has no real mission anymore ace of the skies.

[Coota0]

"Multi-role" is exactly what we don't need. Multi-role is in the 90's and 00's what "Commonality" was in the 60's. It's a method of cutting costs by using one plane for more than one role/branch that works okay rather than use multiple planes more suited to specific situations. A "jack of all trades, master of none."

I thought the JSF was the new Commonality

[Coota0]

While we're on the discussion of the Navy's need for an interceptor/ Air Superiority fighter, there's very little need for a Navy aircraft that's a pure fighter. In today's era of Joint Operations the USAF is in charge of the Air War (look at both Gulf Wars) and decides that their fighter jocks get to have the missions with the best chance of seeing enemy aircraft, that means the Eagles and Raptors get assigned the MiG Sweeps.

[Doctor Paragon]

I remember a quote from an F-14 pilot where he said something like the F-14 looks dangerous just sitting on the ground. The Hornet lacks that aura severly.

Since when has looking cool been a requirement for a Military weapon, there have been some ugly ass looking machines in service.

Heh, never hurts. Also I happen to like the Warthog's rogueish "good looks".

And DAYUM the Super Cat looks heavenly, I wish they had done something

with this design.

Edited December 18, 2004 by Doctor Paragon

[mikeszekely]

"Multi-role" is exactly what we don't need.  Multi-role is in the 90's and 00's what "Commonality" was in the 60's.  It's a method of cutting costs by using one plane for more than one role/branch that works okay rather than use multiple planes more suited to specific situations.  A "jack of all trades, master of none."

I thought the JSF was the new Commonality

And that's why the JSF isn't really any faster or more maneuverable than the F-16.

[mikeszekely]

I NEVER said that we don't need attackers. We definately need aircraft that can make precision strikes at ground targets. The need for attackers doesn't negate the need for interceptors or air superiority fighters. It is the job of the air superiority fighters to secure the skies and allow attackers to hit ground targets without worrying about being shot down by enemy interceptors. I do not believe such thinking is "Cold War mentality" either. The companies like Dassault and Mikoyan have a track record of being less than discerning about their customers. (A considerable portion of Iraq's air force was Mirages). It's not a stretch to imagine Rafales or Flankers in unfriendly forces.

your argument is one that has been thrown up time and again, and really its a non starter. Sure countries can get their hands on Su-27, Rafale ect... but do they have the money to buy a E-2 behind it? the money to match the intensive air superiority training pilots recieve in the US? Do they have the experience and the traditions of the USN or USAF? Will they even have a sufficient number of planes? Its unlikely on all these counts. US air superiority is pretty much implied today. I'd be worried more about new generations of russian SAMs.

Personally, I'd rather my friends in the service had the best equipment possible. If government spending needs to be cut back, instead of taking it from defense, why not force polititcians to pay for limos themselves? They can certainly afford it with their ridiculous salaries.

Holy have you seen the defence budget today? 450 Billion dollars. And the military is stretched thin as it is, and is really not designed for the mission it needs to do, and people want to saddle it with more missions that really are obsolete and just waste more cash. Its time to look at priorities, and what you are proposing isn't one.

Complacency isn't a good thing. We assume that our air superiority is implied, so we upgrade our planes with cheaper fighters that aren't really any better. One day, we'll wake up and realize that US air superiority is NOT a given.

$450 billion... and you yourself admit that the military is stretched thin. I think my priorities are straight... defense should be a top, if not THE top priority. Again, there are plenty of other areas of government spending you could cut first. How about, instead of paying $40 for a hammer or $200 for a toilet seat, the government gets their crap at Wal-Mart for $2 and $6, respectively? How about we nip a few senators' pet projects? Streamline the federal government itself? I mean, we have something like 11 federal agencies that handle intelligence gathering. I can see some of them having differenct focuses than others, but with that many, some of them have to be redundant.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Well back previetnam people thought dogfighting was over and the phantom would take care of everything. With the good to god sparrow missle. Look what happened.

Even if the air force guys meet the MIGs first it does not necesarily mean the requirement for a naval air superiority fighter should be diminished. Remember air force installations get first priority not naval. Meaning the raptors and eagles more than likely are busy trying to clear the skies for B-52's not some carriers out in the ocean. Or a naval strike package. ONe service cannot take care of everything and the capability of a air superiority fighter is still needed by the navy

Because once it isn't one way or another shi* will hit the fan and then 10 years later a new naval air superiority big multiroler will be rectified to fix the mistakes. History repeats itself fellas. a lot of the high brass want a multiroler but not a SMALl multiroler. Most multirole planes have been big. F-4 and F-15E come to mind. Yes this is a JSF rant.

And seriously not all politicians and beurecrats are right in these matters. SOmetimes even the navy high brass. The guy that wanted to eliminate the advanced gun targeting system in the F-14D was a submariner of all people. It's documented in the "TOMCAT!" book.

Also the phoenix has done well against fighter craft and in the iranian war there were no huge bombers to hit, just fighters and strike craft. No B-52 siezed craft. I do not think the ability of the phoenix is tarnished at all. It worked well enough for the iranians that the iraqi's were scared to face the american cats during the war.

THe super hornet is just a compromise fighter which will do good in terms of being reliable but actual function? DOn't get me wrong I do think the navy needs it but just not for a tomcat replaement.

I seriously would hope that military pilots would be making the decisions for the next fighters rather than politicians. WE can't always buy into what they say. After all pilots are on the battlefield, not pencil pushers.

[Coota0]

Even if the air force guys meet the MIGs first it does not necesarily mean the requirement for a naval air superiority fighter should be diminished. Remember air force installations get first priority not naval. Meaning the raptors and eagles more than likely are busy trying to clear the skies for B-52's not some carriers out in the ocean. Or a naval strike package. ONe service cannot take care of everything and the capability of a air superiority fighter is still needed by the navy

That's not how Air Superiority works. You take the battle to the enemy, you hit their air bases on day 1, either destroying aircraft in the ground or in the air. We know where their bases are becuase unless someone is pulling some Tom Clancy BS and hiding hanger in mountains without anyone ever noteing the construction, the satellites are seeing the bases. Even if this were to happen, the enemy is going to strike at our fixed airbases not at the carrier, trying to find the carrier is just too difficult.

There is one other option, the enemy carrier could go hunting for our ships, but what are they going to do about it. The French have the only other serious big deck, nuclear powered carriers in the world, and I'll admit the Rafale is a fine aircraft, but the French have only 2 carriers and they have to get out of the channel before they can do anything. Seriously what are the chances of going to war with the French (insert joke about Frenchies here)? If the EU were to turn very militant (which I doubt since there are a multitude of U.S. bases throughout the member nations) the Brits would most likley end up on our side so the Carriers would have to get past the Brits when getting into the Atlantic. Other Countries do have carriers most are along the lines of the British carriers, a few are along the lines of the Russian carriers (a squadron of fighter and some helicopters), a few countries have ships along the size of our Midway class, but these have size problems, bobody has more than 3, and no one can keep up with the money we spend on our carriers; maneing even if a country has a carrier most can't spend much time at sea.

On Day 2 the Enemy airfoce is gone, and you can go to work on infrastructure, enemy Army/ Naval assets and the biggest threat at this point SAMs and AAA.

[ewilen]

"Multi-role" is exactly what we don't need.  Multi-role is in the 90's and 00's what "Commonality" was in the 60's.  It's a method of cutting costs by using one plane for more than one role/branch that works okay rather than use multiple planes more suited to specific situations.  A "jack of all trades, master of none."

I thought the JSF was the new Commonality

And that's why the JSF isn't really any faster or more maneuverable than the F-16.

Nope, we went through this in another thread and, for lack of what is probably classified information, we calculated the T:W ratio and wing loading of the JSF. In both areas it came out better than an F-16.

[Zentrandude]

Again, there are plenty of other areas of government spending you could cut first. How about, instead of paying $40 for a hammer or $200 for a toilet seat, the government gets their crap at Wal-Mart for $2 and $6, respectively? How about we nip a few senators' pet projects? Streamline the federal government itself? I mean, we have something like 11 federal agencies that handle intelligence gathering. I can see some of them having differenct focuses than others, but with that many, some of them have to be redundant.

Its not the big cost thing that are wastefull like a 200 dollar toliet seat, you will be surprised that its the very small stuff nobody thinks about.

Ammunition is very wasteful, now you may say its needed for combat but not all bases are in direct combat situations and have to use up the ammo ration in the use it or lose it thing. Many times I see them dumping off tons and tons of ammo in the ranges so they get used up including the guns to use em up with (great way to get that full auto experience but it gets boring very fast).

Same with other small items, even if they cost 1 penny each unit they use up millions perhaps billions or trillions and that adds up.

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, but the JSF is far slower and merely "comparable" in agility to the F-16, with a much smaller payload. (Especially with it's new, modified, smaller internal bays they just did). 2 AMRAAM's and 2 small JDAM's is nothing compared to say 2 AMRAAM's and 2 HARM's and 2 big JDAM's. More weapons, bigger weapons.

And if you add on the wing pylons, then you have a non-stealthy JSF that has little to no advantages over the F-16, which costs a whole lot more...

The Hornet's the slowest supersonic fighter since the 50's, the JSF will soon take that title...

Edited December 18, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Major Johnathan]

And you Super-bug lovers ( ) seem to have ignored what I posted about the Tomcat's kick-ass bombing abiltiy. It was ALWAYS designed to be 'multi-role', it just so happens it's a stunningly good fighter/interceptor.

It's bombing abiltiy, in terms of much more time to loiter over the enemy's heads and to drop much more payload on their heads make the Tomcat quite a superior 'Multi-Role' fighter/interceptor/bomber.

Geez, this multi role nonsense is hardly ground breaking. In WWII, when Wildcat's and Hellcat's cleared the sky of fighters, they came back with bombs and rockets slung under the wings and pounded the poor saps on the ground.

About the only improvement people site for the Super Hornet is it takes less time to maintain. So the F-14 is a Ferrari and the Super Hornet is a VW Beetle... I'd stick with the Ferrari. (Only this Ferrari has better gas mileage and more cargo space than the Beetle)

[Coota0]

And you Super-bug lovers ( ) seem to have ignored what I posted about the Tomcat's kick-ass bombing abiltiy. It was ALWAYS designed to be 'multi-role', it just so happens it's a stunningly good fighter/interceptor.

That same strike mission also costs much more with an F-14

[ewilen]

Yes, but the JSF is far slower and merely "comparable" in agility to the F-16, with a much smaller payload. (Especially with it's new, modified, smaller internal bays they just did). 2 AMRAAM's and 2 small JDAM's is nothing compared to say 2 AMRAAM's and 2 HARM's and 2 big JDAM's. More weapons, bigger weapons.

And if you add on the wing pylons, then you have a non-stealthy JSF that has little to no advantages over the F-16, which costs a whole lot more...

The Hornet's the slowest supersonic fighter since the 50's, the JSF will soon take that title...

David, you're forgetting that the smaller bays only apply to the B model, so you should be comparing it to the Harrier, not the F-16.

Far slower? I see varying numbers on the F-35, anything from Mach 1.5 to 1.8. In any case, speed in a given mission configuration is what should be compared, and then realistic speed considering range/fuel requirements. The F-16 is going to be dirtier than the F-35 in many/most configurations.

Major Jonathan, thank you for at least acknowledging the logistics advantage of the Super Hornet. You can have the Beetle/Ferrari analogy if you like, although it's more like a BMW vs. Ferrari when the rest of the world is either driving Geo Metros or, yes, Lexuses--except that they only get to practice driving their Lexus a couple times a year.

Or consider the Sherman/T-34 vs. Panther/Tiger analogy.

[David Hingtgen]

I've never seen anything other than 1.5 for the JSF. And even if we go with the "high" of 1.8, that's still damn slow, especially considering what a massively powerful engine it has. Most powerful fighter jet engine ever, and one of the slowest planes in decades.

A clean F-35 has a fairly useless payload/existence IMHO. Since it's not really supposed to fight, (F-22's will do that), you're spending a lot of money to deliver 2 small/medium JDAM's at a time, stealthily. Heck, F-117's can already do that, as can the F-22...

We really need more F-22's... (never thought I'd say that). Like the F-35, but superior in every way. (except cost, and "really really expensive" is pretty close to "really really really expensive)

Edited December 19, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

What's the estimated flyaway cost for an F-35A vs. F-22?

And I doubt the F-22 is better at dropping bombs than the F-35, though it will get them to the target faster. That's what that GAO report was all about.

The F-22 needs bases, which both limits the places it can be used and means that it will be operating out of a fixed target for enemy aircraft and missiles. The F-35C will be operating from aircraft carriers.

As for the F-16 vs. F-35, again, it's not a question of how fast you can go when clean, but how fast and how far you can carry a certain payload. What is the F-16 carrying when it's going over Mach 1.8?

[David Hingtgen]

With JDAM's, every plane's equally good at them. A B-52, F-16, and a P-51, would all have the same accuracy.

There is (IMHO) little point in having large numbers of F-35's to replace F-16's, when the F-22 will do the same, but better/faster/and more of them.

We certainly need F-35's to replace the Harrier, but I've long said that's the only thing it can and should replace. Since the Harrier can't carry much, very far, at all fast.

F-35's are needed in small numbers to replace/supplement Baby Hornets, ONLY for reasons of "there's no stealth Navy plane" but their payload is so small compared to a Super Hornet, and smaller than a Baby Hornet. And there are many important weapons (notably the HARM, SLAM, SLAM-ER, and Harpoon) that won't fit internally. Put them externally on a JSF, and it's lost it's only reason for being on a carrier--stealth.

Basically--I'm all for SOME F-35's. But sure as heck not for thousands of them replacing every F-16 and Baby Hornet..

Finally, kind of reiterating: F-16 vs F-35 speed. My point is that instead of buying F-35's, buy F-22's. Fast enough, with bigger payload.

Ok, post-finally:

Most front-line USAF F-16's are pretty much either night-attack, or SEAD. F-22's can't hold HARM's inside, nor have any sort of LANTIRN system etc AFAIK. We still need F-16's for those roles---which is 90% of what F-16's do. F-22/35 can't "replace" those planes if they're not filling those roles. Of course, I think there'll be a "more sensors" more attack-dedicated F-22 someday (all internal changes, not an FB-22), but not for a while.

Edited December 19, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Coota0]

F-35's are needed in small numbers to replace/supplement Baby Hornets, ONLY for reasons of "there's no stealth Navy plane" but their payload is so small compared to a Super Hornet, and smaller than a Baby Hornet. And there are many important weapons (notably the HARM...

Is there much point in looking for SAM's if you're stealthy? If they can't see you they want try to track you and shoot you. If you're not stealthy they'll see you, track you and then you can shoot them with the HARMs

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

HARM and future SEAD missles are using passive guidance. So I kind of doubt you would need a active radar source to aim those things. Just as long as you know where they are or a JSTARs links you up.

And money is what the buerecrats bring up not the actual pilots. I keep remembering how everyone says the super bug is so much cheaper than retrofitting tomcats when it was the exact opposite.

What is mandated as official is not always "true" per se boys.

[ewilen]

Yeah, I think I'm going to stop out of sheer exhaustion. The Super Hornet/F-14 and F-16/F-22/JSF thing just keeps coming up too often, and as I said, with basically the same points reiterated (and ignored ) on both sides.

But, you know, there's always something in the last guy's post that really needs to be pointed out...

F-35's are needed in small numbers to replace/supplement Baby Hornets, ONLY for reasons of "there's no stealth Navy plane" but their payload is so small compared to a Super Hornet, and smaller than a Baby Hornet.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/

F/A-18A-D

Payload: 15,500 lbs.

Hardpoints: 7 plus two wingtip rails

F/A-18E/F

Payload: 17,750 lbs

Hardpoints: 9 plus two wingtip rails

F-35C

Payload: 17,000 lbs.

Hardpoints: 8 including internal bays (internal bays each hold one--perhaps two--missiles and a bomb)

[David Hingtgen]

*Internal* payload. A JSF using its many external hardpoints is non-stealthy, and thus has little reason to exist. Internal payload is like 2,700lbs. (Assuming 2x1,000lb JDAM +2 AMRAAM) Why even have JSF's on a carrier if you're going to use them for non-stealth attacks?

Edited December 19, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

To replace F-18A/B/C/D's as they're retired. We already know that the F-35 has a bigger payload; I'm fairly certain it will also have a greater payload-range than the baby hornet, and probablybetter bringback capability. Add in better avionics and the ability to serve as stealth bombers. I'll bet that there's also a maintainability advantage, though of course nothing like the difference between Super Hornet and Tomcat.

Against those advantages are the Navy's share of the F-35's development costs, and any difference in flyaway cost compared to a new baby Hornet. But overall the F-35 looks like it could be a good choice for the Navy; I certainly don't see a slam-dunk case for the opposition.

[Nied]

I agree with ewilien, what the point of making these arguments if they're just going to be ignored next time.

A clean F-35 has a fairly useless payload/existence IMHO. Since it's not really supposed to fight, (F-22's will do that), you're spending a lot of money to deliver 2 small/medium JDAM's at a time, stealthily. Heck, F-117's can already do that, as can the F-22...

If a clean F-35 has a useless existence then a dirty Viper or Baby Hornet is even worse. Take a look at the loadout that those two carried into pretty much every conflict since the Balkans: a pair each of AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Droptanks, and roughly 2,000 lb PGMs (either Paveway, JDAM or sometimes HARMs), they're obviously not very stealthy and good luck getting supersonic let alone to Mach 1.5 in that configuration. The F-35 on the other hand can carry almost the exact same load (minus the sidewinders, and as David pointed out the B model has recently been restricted to 1,000 lb JDAMs or Paveways) only everything is internal so not only is it stealthy, it goes into war clean and thus is able to reach it's top speed under real conditions. The only thing that couldn't be carried internally is the HARM, but the F-35 is stealthy enough to get close enough to drop a JSOW instead.

Yes, but the JSF is far slower and merely "comparable" in agility to the F-16, with a much smaller payload.

The F-35 can rreach it's maximum speed carrying almost the same warload as the F-16, the F-16 can reach it's maximum speed carrying a pair of sidewinders. As to maneuverability as Ewilien pointed out we've been over this. The F-35 has superior T:W ratio and superior wing loading you do the math.