# Less competent carrier planes



## renrich (Mar 25, 2007)

I believe that the US Navy now has a bunch of expensive bird farms running aound with, in some ways, a much less competent air wing embarked. The attack component is now mainly the Super Hornet with fleet defense also being on the shoulders of the Hornet. The attack capabilities of the FA18 in some ways are not nearly as great as that of the A6 and the Hornet is not nearly as competent as the F14 was at fleet defense. Grumman had a proposal for an upgraded Strike Tomcat which would have had all the electronic and infrared targeting abilities of the Super Hornet, would have had a longer range, greater load carry, much higher performance, 0 WOD capability, could have launched W/O burner and the only advantage the Super Hornet would have had was more stealthy. Plus an upgraded F14D would still be able to deliver the Phoenix and still out perform most enemy A/c. Anyone else share my concern?


----------



## mkloby (Mar 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe that the US Navy now has a bunch of expensive bird farms running aound with, in some ways, a much less competent air wing embarked. The attack component is now mainly the Super Hornet with fleet defense also being on the shoulders of the Hornet. The attack capabilities of the FA18 in some ways are not nearly as great as that of the A6 and the Hornet is not nearly as competent as the F14 was at fleet defense. Grumman had a proposal for an upgraded Strike Tomcat which would have had all the electronic and infrared targeting abilities of the Super Hornet, would have had a longer range, greater load carry, much higher performance, 0 WOD capability, could have launched W/O burner and the only advantage the Super Hornet would have had was more stealthy. Plus an upgraded F14D would still be able to deliver the Phoenix and still out perform most enemy A/c. Anyone else share my concern?



Not in the least, Sir. The US Navy is certainly not "expensive bird farms running around with a much less competent air wing embarked." The legacy platforms employed by USN/USMC squadrons are more than capable to eliminate any threat. Furthermore, the first production USMC F-35B is currently under construction, and the Lightning II will be joining the fleet in several years.

Add into the mix the capabilities of EA-6Bs, soon to be replaced by EA-18Gs, and the radar services provided by E-2s. I honestly think that your post could not be further from the truth. No other naval aviation forces can touch USN/USMC naval aviation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2007)

Gotta agree with mkloby here, besides he is an expert in the matter since he will soon be done with his training and joining the fleet.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2007)

Thank you for your remarks mkloby. Please don't interpret my observations as a criticism of the Navy or Marines. I am a big fan of the US Navy, had two uncles that joined in the 30s and served on CAs as CGMs in WW2 so I was enamored with a career in the Navy and was set to enroll at Annapolis when I flunked the physical(color blind) Would have been there at the same time as McCain and would have probably had a worse record gradewise than he. My concern is that after the failure of the A12 program a political decision was made by the Bush 41 administration to replace the A6 with the Super Hornet in order to keep McDonnell Douglas a viable contractor rather than go with the more capable Strike Tomcat. There was a book written about this entitled(I believe) "The Pentagon Paradox" which goes into this issue. I have the book but it is storage. In addition, I have a friend, a retired Navy Captain, a former carrier CO, a former attack community A4 and A6 driver in Viet Nam who shares my same concerns. Any observations by you which put to rest my concerns are most welcome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2007)

I think if you look into the capabilities of the FA-18 airframe you'll have a change of mind. I felt the same way when the Navy retired my little "Hoover," the S-3. After reading how they are replacing it, especially the ES-3B I think the navy is going in the right direction - wait till the F-35 comes on board!


----------



## mkloby (Mar 26, 2007)

I don't know much about the acquisition of the hornet replacing the A-6. However, I think that what spurred interest in smaller, lighter weight fighters such as F-16 and F/A-18 was such Soviet A/C. As far as M-D hurting, were they really hurting that badly after the success of the F-4? Also, I believe that F/A-18s cost about half that of F-14s, and I would suspect are also cheaper to operate. People don't give the Hornet its due credit. The AIM-120 combined with linking is a DEADLY air-air weapon.

Again, keep in mind that the F-35B/C will be entering fleet trials soon, and acquisitions will follow thereafter. Doesn't that in an of itself allay any fears you might harbor as to the inadequacy of our current legacy airframes?


----------



## MacArther (Mar 26, 2007)

Yes, but from what I remember, 1 F-14 could engage the same amount of targets simultaneously as 3 F-18s. Dunno, could be out of date, but that is still pretty amazing.


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 26, 2007)

My old roomie flew the F-14 and later the F/A-18, and was CO of VF-137.
He said that as much as he loved the big "Turkey", he would choose the Super Hornet...But also, the F-14 was not easily sustainable, with multiple obsolescance issues and extremely expensive maintenance. There is no threat facing the fleet that the Hornet and its weapons suite can't handle; the F-14 wasn't phased out on a whim, believe me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2007)

I knew some F-14 maintainers while in the reserves - they hated them and the scars on their knuckles proved it....


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2007)

You gentlemen are making me feel better all the time for I believe the US Navy's ability to project power through carrier aviation is essential to our security. I would hate to think our carriers with each one having some 5000 sailors on board go to sea with anything but the best equipment we can provide for them. In addition I have been concerned since the decision was made in favor of the Super Hornet that people who I voted for would decide about a weapon system on anything but it's merits and what is best for our country. Having said that, it seems that just about the time of that decision M-D had lost out on a big commercial aviation contract and was looking at closing some plants. As you know they are pretty much out of the airliner business now. I am behind on keeping up with military aviation for I do not know about the F35. Is that a sea going F22 or is it the JSF? How does the F18 stack up against a Mig 29 or SU27? Is the difference in performance made up for by ordnance carried? As you know the F14 could engage as many as 6 targets at once with the Phoenix at ranges up to 100 miles. A new manufactured F14 incorporating the latest digital gizmos and state of the art electronics would I believe have reduced the maintenance problems substantially that plagued the Tomcat in it's last years. By the way, my friend who flew the A4 and A6 in Viet Nam flew the A6 when they first evaluated the Intruder versus a captured Mig 21. That was an interesting story.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2007)

On the story about the light weight fighter trend, I believe there was what was called The Light Weight Fighter Mafia in the Air Force. They believed that our fighters had gotten too complicated and bulky with an example being the F4. They wanted the USAF to buy the F20 in bulk. I believe Yeager was a charter member of this group. The F20 was not procured but out of this controversy came the competition between the YF16 and the YF17. The Navy saw possibilities in the YF17 because of the two engines and out of that a/c came the FA18. I wonder if one can call the FA18 a lightweight fighter. For a heavyweight it seems like the F15 has had some success.


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2007)

All I do know is that when the F14 and F15 were being developed for service there was a strong sentiment that only one of them should go into production and be used for both the USN and USAF. Both were very capable aircraft and this process had worked with the F4.

You have to admit that with the exception of the Phoenix missile, there was some logic to that argument.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2007)

Well, the F14 could have probably filled the F15 shoes as an interceptor because of the Phoenix but I think it would have been extremely difficult for the F15 to have been a successful carrier fighter unless it was heavily modified. Remember the F4 was designed from the beginning as a ship board fighter and only later did it become a land based a/c. In fact, it remains to be seen if the F35 will be a successful carrier plane. The F111 was designed from the beginning as a multi purpose "fighter?" to operate off carriers as well as land based. It never made it as a successful carrier plane. McNamara's folly! It seems to me the only time there have been a/c that did well as carrier planes and also suited as land based a/c was when they were purpose built as a carrier design and then transitioned into the land based role. The Navy considered the P51, because of it's long range qualities, as a shipboard fighter but it's slow speed handling qualities were too poor for carrier landings. I doubt they ever got far enough along to find out if the a/c was rugged enough for carrier operations. That was the problem with the Seafire, good performance and beautiful handling but too fragile for carrier landings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2007)

The F-35 was designed to fulfill 3 missions. The USAF and Navy version won't hover, the Navy version will have STOL capability. It's the Marine version that will have the internal lift fan enabling it to hover but limiting its internal capability.

*"F-35 Variants
US Air Force
The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement. 

US Navy
The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF.

US Marine Corps
The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35."*


----------



## renrich (Mar 27, 2007)

Flyboy, how do you feel about the "hover" requirement for the Marines in the JSF? Has the Harrier been a competent and cost effective a/c for the US?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2007)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, how do you feel about the "hover" requirement for the Marines in the JSF? Has the Harrier been a competent and cost effective a/c for the US?


One of my best friends was involved in the electrical design of the X-35 and is now working on the first F-35. The lift fan is revolutionary. I got to see the first conventional flight as well as the first hover and I was thoroughly impressed. According to what some of my friend's work counterparts said in the hover mode, the X-35 was easier to fly than the Harrier and an RAF pilot flew her as well with the same opinion.

The Harrier served the US Marines well although there was a high attrition rate. The Harrier was/ is a revolutionary aircraft and with any revolutionary aircraft there comes risk. I think the F-35 mitigates that risk by taking the technology first derived in the Harrier to the next level.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2007)

The F/A-18E/F with AESA is being touted as the bridge between F-22/F-35. With sensor integration, look down/shoot down capability with small stealthy platforms and AESA capabilities allowing infiltration, manipulation and subterfuge...how can it miss. Recently the E/F underwent stealth upgrades such as absorbant coatings, intake screens and empenage changes. AIM-120 C-6 and C-7 will allow cruise missile defense in head on situations and high-G terminal maneuvers at 100m ranges. AESA will allow detection at 250nm ranges with narrow beam operation and AEW of even AWACS platforms at about same.

Compare this to traditional F-15C with 100nm radar ranges! And wait until AIM-120D!

Don't underestimate the F-18 platform. You will see this bird on the books for the next 20-30 years at least.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 27, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Don't underestimate the F-18 platform. You will see this bird on the books for the next 20-30 years at least.



Thanks Matt. Nobody seems to give the F/A-18's enough credit. The E/F models are especially potent warbirds. All most people seem to focus on are the sexy maneuvers performed by Russian stunt planes. Aerobatics won't win wars.


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

Much obliged to all of you well informed gentlemen. Not that it matters but I now feel our carriers are much more capable. "If you want peace you must prepare for war."


----------



## mkloby (Mar 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> Much obliged to all of you well informed gentlemen. Not that it matters but I now feel our carriers are much more capable. "If you want peace you must prepare for war."



You better freakin believe it.  No other navy or naval aviation force can mass the sort of firepower as the USN, or even come close.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 29, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Thanks Matt. Nobody seems to give the F/A-18's enough credit. The E/F models are especially potent warbirds. All most people seem to focus on are the sexy maneuvers performed by Russian stunt planes. Aerobatics won't win wars.



I think it's just that most people (myself included) are bitter about the Tomcat retiring. The F/A-18 has some big shoes to fill and it seems to be doing it rather nicely. I was particularly impressed with the new model performing as a tanker. Not to mention all the combat upgrades and all that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

Why be bitter about it. It was time. The F-14 was an aging aircraft and hard to maintain. A friend that I flew with in the Army was a former F-14 mechanic and he said they were hard to keep flying.

Nothing lasts forever, why be bitter about it?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 29, 2007)

I like the F-18, I see them flying around Wpg often. Very solid planes.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

And the most impressive solo performance that I have ever seen was at McChord AFB by a Canadian CF-18. Stole the show!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 29, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And the most impressive solo performance that I have ever seen was at McChord AFB by a Canadian CF-18. Stole the show!



Yes I have seen them do some impressive things also.


----------



## renrich (Mar 29, 2007)

The other thing that hurts about the F14 going away is that now since very early in carrier aviation, there are no Grumman fighters flying or Voughts either for that matter.


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 29, 2007)

renrich said:


> The other thing that hurts about the F14 going away is that now since very early in carrier aviation, there are no Grumman fighters flying or Voughts either for that matter.



I have to agree with you on that point...The Grumman Iron Works has enjoyed a rich and proud history with the USN. However, Northrop Grumman will still provide many sensors and weapons...But, here's the deal: once you
'exit' the business as prime builder, given the complexity of today's aircraft,
you could not afford to return short of acquiring or merging with a company
that still has an active design and manufacturing progam, and paying contracts...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

I once had the family tree of all WWI and WWII aerospace manufacturing companies and how they have merged. It was published in AvWeek about 10 years ago. Wish I still had it. Quite fascinating really.


----------



## renrich (Mar 29, 2007)

The history of aviation though relatively short is rich in all countries. Fascinating to read about. As was said though the number of companies that have the ability to build aircraft today grows shorter every year. I also am afraid that the era of the manned aircraft is drawing to a close particularly in military aviation. A number of years ago I went to a fly in of Beechcraft Staggerwings in of all places Gunnison, CO. I have photographs somewhere of that. There must have been at least a dozen there at one time. What a sight.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

Beech Staggerwing. An art deco classic.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> The history of aviation though relatively short is rich in all countries. Fascinating to read about. As was said though the number of companies that have the ability to build aircraft today grows shorter every year. I also am afraid that the era of the manned aircraft is drawing to a close particularly in military aviation. A number of years ago I went to a fly in of Beechcraft Staggerwings in of all places Gunnison, CO. I have photographs somewhere of that. There must have been at least a dozen there at one time. What a sight.



I must disagree with the belief that manned A/C will soon be a thing of the past. It's not going to happen.


----------



## renrich (Mar 30, 2007)

How did I know I would hear from you on that? I yield to your enthusiasm and knowledge and retract the statement. Please forgive me. On the Beech Staggerwing. There was a famous bush pilot who lived in Gunnison name Rocky Warren and it was he who was responsible for the fly in there. There is a story(I think it is true) which is hilarious about Rocky and his supercharged Staggerwing. One day Rocky was doing aerial photography over the front range at high altitude( I think 27000 feet, but my memory is not all that good anymore) and a Delta DC8 captain, who obviously had never seen a staggerwing, radioed Denver control, identified himself, and said ther is some idiot up here at this altitude in a bi plane and he is upside down.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 30, 2007)

Everyone kind of knows that the Tomcat has had it's day but no one really wanted to see it go. Just one of those things. Of course the new jets will perform better and everything but you still halfway want to see it stay. 

Haha, it's hard to imagine pilots that have never seen the staggerwing. Such a pretty plane. It's like a car enthusiast never having heard of a Testarossa.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> How did I know I would hear from you on that? I yield to your enthusiasm and knowledge and retract the statement. Please forgive me. On the Beech Staggerwing. There was a famous bush pilot who lived in Gunnison name Rocky Warren and it was he who was responsible for the fly in there. There is a story(I think it is true) which is hilarious about Rocky and his supercharged Staggerwing. One day Rocky was doing aerial photography over the front range at high altitude( I think 27000 feet, but my memory is not all that good anymore) and a Delta DC8 captain, who obviously had never seen a staggerwing, radioed Denver control, identified himself, and said ther is some idiot up here at this altitude in a bi plane and he is upside down.



an unmanned a/c is not a living, breathing, thinking human. Us pilots aren't terribly smart, but we get the job done. That's a major mitigating factor there for many of the complications I see with a future of unmanned birds. Not to mention - they need to navigate based on preset coordinates, GPS, or other traditional navaids. Anyone with decent flight experience can tell you all the times these things DON'T work as planned, and the crew needs to improvise - sometimes resorting to visual navigation. An unmanned a/c is not going to be capable of that. Just a few things to consider off of the top of my head.


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

Mkloby, all good points. Always good to remember Murphy's Law. Thanks for the Jolly Roger picture, Aggie, I really mourn the Turkey's passing. Was at an air show once where a F14D had flown in from Fallon and spent an hour or so with the pilot and RIO. They were really proud of their airplane. For some reason I feel the loss of the F14 as I did the F4U. Interesting story, I have a friend back in Texas same vintage as me. He has 2000 hours in the F100 and was an IP at the Fighter Weapons School at one time. Flew 150 missions as a FAC in Viet Nam and retired as a United pilot. Doesn't fly anymore but I sent him a picture of an F4U taken by my brither at Oshkosh and he told me that looking at that airplane really gave him the urge to fly it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

Remember, back in the 1950s it was said the day of air-to-air combat (dogfighting) was over.

If I had to guess, I'd be there has been over 100,000 fighter to fighter engagements since 1960...


----------



## Chief (Mar 31, 2007)

Actually, I can see why they let the F-14 go rather than the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The F-14 was the navy's air interceptor and escort fighter. It was designed specifically to intercept bombers and fighters. The F/A-18 Super hornet is a multipurpose Fighter /bomber designed for everything from Night/day bombing, fighter escort, reconnaissance(though not needed as much with today's satellite system.)

The F-14 is designed specifically as a Fighter interceptor, it can and will take down anything else one on one, minus maybe the F15, not to mention the later versions have AGM capabilities.
The super hornet is what I call a contingency plan aircraft. It's a tactical bomber not the best, but with 17,500 lbs of ordnance it's not something you want to take lightly. With it's Aim-120 AMRAAM Missile it's also a fighter capable of taking on just about anything anybody else has and at a safe distance and at half almost half the cost. 

Now the navy is coming out with the F-35 which is said will become the worlds top new Air-to-air fighter. Now you have to replace a bird you currently have. If you get rid of the Super hornet, your stuck with the F-14 with it's outstanding fighter capability you already have with F-35, but you'll lose the bombing capabilities you'll still have if you keep the F/A-18E/F Super hornet. Sure you'll have an effective air superiority campaign, but you won't have a nearly as effective bombing or close-air-support campaign. That also means a less effective air force and a less effect military.
The Navy in essence doesn't really need the F-14 anyhow. If you got rid of the F-14 (like they did) the U.S Navy would still have a top of the line Air superiority fighter, but you'll also have a top of the line tactical bomber in all in one and a smaller price tag.

Though it doesn't make it an easy decision to make especially with a war bird with as big a record as the Tomcat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2007)

They got rid of the F-14 because she was aging fast. She was a bitch to work on (I know I have a friend who was a F-14 mechanic and he said he hated every minute working on the things), and there is no threat for the F-14 anymore. Relatively speaking however.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> On the story about the light weight fighter trend, I believe there was what was called The Light Weight Fighter Mafia in the Air Force. They believed that our fighters had gotten too complicated and bulky with an example being the F4. They wanted the USAF to buy the F20 in bulk. I believe Yeager was a charter member of this group. The F20 was not procured but out of this controversy came the competition between the YF16 and the YF17. The Navy saw possibilities in the YF17 because of the two engines and out of that a/c came the FA18. I wonder if one can call the FA18 a lightweight fighter. For a heavyweight it seems like the F15 has had some success.



The LWF program occured about ten years before the F-20 flew.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2007)

The F-18 is a very capable aircraft. Like the F-4, the F-18 is taking over several jobs. This will help the Navy standardize support (which it has been trying to do for years), reducing variety of parts, simplfy operations, etc. But, like the F-4, when you take on several roles, you maximize none. However, it is a great aircraft, and, with its Navy and Marine pilots, will not take a back seat to any non-stealth aircraft. Also, with its much higher reliability numbers, flight hours vs. deck space (if there is such a thing) will increase significantly.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2007)

The one thing that I always wondered, was why didn't they develop a land only based version. The vast majority of the customers don't have carriers and a land based version could shed a lot of weight fairly easily, significantly improving the performance.
The obvious thing is to avoid development cost but with the new generation of competition i.e. Gripen and Rafel it could make a difference as these are serious contenders.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2007)

Glider said:


> The one thing that I always wondered, was why didn't they develop a land only based version. The vast majority of the customers don't have carriers and a land based version could shed a lot of weight fairly easily, significantly improving the performance.
> The obvious thing is to avoid development cost but with the new generation of competition i.e. Gripen and Rafel it could make a difference as these are serious contenders.


I think you'll find that many of the customers specifications for their fighter purchased included things that you would think is found only on a naval aircraft IE. the tail hook. There isn't much you could remove form the FA-18 to make it lighter.


----------

