Macross_Fanboy Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the rationale in-story. I don't agree that advanced technology would be used for its own sake. Consider the USN, which is phasing out (or will soon) the F-14--an incredible interceptor capable of knocking down multiple targets simultaneously at long range--and replacing it with the Super Hornet, which is less capable in the interceptor role (and maybe others). The reason: money and the lack of the massive Soviet bomber swarms which the F-14 was supposed to protect our fleets against. Ewelin, the F-14 isn't a capable fighter for air-to-ground. The Hornets are the nation's first multi-purpose strike fighter. The Super Hornet can carry more bang for less buck, and it serves more of a replacement for the old and extremely well-built F-4 Phantoms/Weasels. Sure it doesn't have the ability to fire Phoenixes, but it's better in the long run. The Hornet was the first Navy fighter to feature MPDs (Multi-Purpose-Displays), something that the Tomcats didn't have at the time. The F-18s proved themselves in Desert Storm. The F-14 didn't prove much, they were just a remedy to the Soviet threat, they're relics of the Cold War, much like the B-52 is. Except the B-52s were more useful since they got to see combat (a lot!) during Vietnam. Back on the subject. The Valkyries just have to transform, they can't not transform. It'd be more expensive taking a step backwards rather than forward. I don't have specific reason as to why it would, but I'll get back with the answers when I'm done thinking about why . I just posted to correct Ewelin. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Nope, I don't feel that I've been corrected. My point was that for the role it was designed to fill, the F-14 does a better job than the Super Hornet. If we still needed a superduper interceptor to swat down Russkie bomber swarms, and cost was no issue, the Super Hornet (at least as currently built) wouldn't be the aircraft of choice, and chances are we'd need a specialized interceptor system (evolution or replacement of the Tomcat) and a separate strike system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macross_Fanboy Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Hey, the F-14 Tomcats aren't even being phased out yet. They'll totally be out of commission by 2040 by the F-35, as well as the any other aging fighter aircraft. And a seperate role fighter isn't a great idea, isn't even a good one. You just can't have a Tomcat shooting down incoming swarms of aircraft, it needs to be more flexible than that, something that the F-18s are good at doing. Besides, now all the pilot has to do is launch a missile and the operators on the AWACs can guide the missile to a specific target. Besides, the F-15E Strike Eagle can kick a Tomcat's ass in almost every aspect, as well as the F-18E Super Hornet. Now, the F-16s could have been a better interceptor than the Tomcat and a better multi-role fighter than the Hornet, but the Navy didn't want it because of its limited range, even with the external fuel tanks and mid-air refuels, one reason why F-15s are the better escort fighter for the USAF. Plus, I don't think the Tomcats are very fuel efficient, and cost more to maintain because they're older than most naval aircraft and have moving wings. It's like trying to maintain a vintage Ford from the 50s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 (edited) A separate role fighter (actually intercepter) isn't a good idea, unless you need to fill that role with the best system possible, in which case you don't want to try to make it do other stuff if that means compromising its capability in its primary role. I also don't see why you're comparing carrier-borne and land-based aircraft. The Super Hornet is a compromise (though some would say it's not a particularly good one) that's designed to meet the current needs of the Navy economically. If we still needed to knock down large numbers of bombers headed for our carrier groups, we'd either build an upgraded Tomcat or develop a new system to do the job (not necessarily an aircraft--Aegis may have something to do with this, now that I think about it). Edit: But you could convince me if you could show that the F-18E/F is a better interceptor than the Super Tomcat (or even better, a conceivable further evolution had the Tomcat program been continued). Edited September 21, 2003 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.