Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Don't shoot the messenger Renrich
I posted it precisely for the reasons I'm seeing, to stimulate debate or even just comment; I had an idea one or two of you more 'in the know' would have something to say about it.
Super Tomcat vs. Super Hornet
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I posted it precisely for the reasons I'm seeing, to stimulate debate or even just comment; I had an idea one or two of you more 'in the know' would have something to say about it.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
My apologies Colin but was not intending to shoot messenger but rather just identifying the post my converstions with Navy pilots disagreed with.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And I realize that as well Colin. Again I'd love to find out if this guy was actually in the military.
SoD Stitch
Banned
Look, the bottom line is the US DOES NOT need a multi-million dollar long-range bomber destroyer, that went out with the end of the Cold War; what the US needs is an a/c that can do a lot of jobs fairly well without being really good at any of them, hence the F-18 E/F/G. No, the F-18 E/F cannot fire the Phoenix, or engage targets out at 100 miles +, but what it can do is shoot missles, drop bombs with reasonable accuracy, attack maritime targets and (usually) get back to the carrier to do it again.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey no worries fellas
I didn't want you thinking his views reflected mine. In truth, I don't know enough about either aircraft to have a substantial opinion either way.
He does sound like a badly disaffected driver
- Thread starter
- #26
"Thats a glaring error ch and you should know better. The F14 was never in competition with the F-111B and as for it being superior, the F-14 was only created in the first place because the F-111B was an abject failure. Why would Grumman go to the expense of developing a whole new fighter when they they had the contract to build the F-111B all sewn up? Answer, because the thing was no bloody good.
"
Was that me? It sounds like me.
"
Was that me? It sounds like me.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The big issue that I see with the Super Hornet versus the Strike Tomcat is the following: The reason that I am an "expert" is that I have read a lot about it. LOL. But I have talked to at least one retired Navy captain who was in the attack community(flew A6s and A4s in VN) and commanded a CV(Lexington used for Carquals) about this specific subject. We are talking about a new manufactured, specifically adapted two place Strike Tom Cat (STC) versus a new manufactured and designed two place Super Hornet ( SH). The original Hornet was a light attack AC that could engage in ACM. The original TC was designed for fleet defense and it could and did be used for dropping bombs. To me, there was a little gamble involved in that the SH was almost a new AC to be developed when the contract was signed and there was no guarantee that the capabilities needed would be met. The STC was not going to need much modification and it's capabilities were already known. Keep in mind that the USN today has no equivalent to the A6. The SH is basically a light attack AC. To me, the STC would have been closer to an A6 replacement because of it's sheer size. The STC could have carried at least as big of a bomb load as the SH and would have a huge performance advantage, more range and faster. My bet is but I can't prove it that the STC would still be supersonic with a full bomb load and the SH would not. The SH is about a 1.8 Mach AC, the TC is 2.4 Mach. My source gives the range of the two as 500 NM combat radius for the Hornet and more than 1700 NM range for the TC which is not apples to apples but there is no doubt the TC is longer legged. A big advantage for the TC is that it can launch without burner which saves a lot of fuel. The Hornet can't. The other big advantage for the TC is zero WOD ability which the Hornet does not have. If you are the CO of a carrier and your heading is due west and your target is to the west and you have a 25 knot wind on the stern, that means you have to come about and steam away from the target while you launch the strike with Hornets but you don't with TCs. To add to that , the TC is going to have probably around 200 NM more combat radius than the SH so you don't have to get as close to the target to launch and you have more targets you can reach. If you have to steam into the wind to launch you may have to get closer to a target that can hit you back than you want or maybe get into shoal water where you have no business being. If I am a carrier skipper and have a choice of a plane that is faster, can carry as big a load, can launch with zero WOD, can reach targets further away and that can engage enemy attackers further from my carrier with all the newest missiles(not necessarily the Phoenix) but is somewhat harder to maintain, my choice is clear. Now you have the opinion of a would be admiral( who was a Spec 4 in the Army). LOL
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Also keep in mind that the first deployment of the F-111 was a bloody failure. I think 10 of them were lost during their first Vietnam deployment and i think all from non-combat situations. they earned the name "Wonder-Lemon."
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Aaaaahhh
at last I understand
so do you know anything about this guy? What does/did he do for a living? We're all wondering if he's an ex-driver/engineer
Ahhh, I followed the link you posted earlier, I thought that quote sounded familiar!
As for Ch1466, He was a military engineer, but a very disaffected one. As far as I remember he never said which branch. As you can probably tell from that thread he was not easy to get along with (understatement!),
As for Ch1466, He was a military engineer, but a very disaffected one. As far as I remember he never said which branch. As you can probably tell from that thread he was not easy to get along with (understatement!),
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
- Thread starter
- #33
Sorry to quote the whole post, but that's only because I like it. Have I said I'm a Tomcat fan?
SoD Stitch
Banned
Actually, they only lost three a/c, and there were no witnesses to the crashes since the F-111 operated singly. It was later determined that the "most likely cause" was failure of the first-gen TFR in all three a/c and, possibly, a horizontal stabilizer failure on one of them.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You are correct - 6 were deployed, 3 crashed.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
That's still a 50% loss rate not attributable to enemy action
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's still a 50% loss rate not attributable to enemy action
Yep! Not very good.
Hence "Wonder-Lemon"
SoD Stitch
Banned
That's still a 50% loss rate not attributable to enemy action
Exactly; I am somewhat surprised that the USAF would deploy such an untried weapons system so quickly, especially one that employs many innovative features (VG wings, first-gen TFR, first-gen low bypass-ratio turbofans, etc.). However, after they got the bugs worked out (a decade later), it was an excellent weapons platform.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
VIETNAM - you also had mental giants like McNamara making all kinds of stupid decisions.
Messy1
Master Sergeant
Well, McNamara had math on his side. 
If 10 soldiers, fired so many rounds, so many enemy soldiers should be hit etc.! I forget the exact equation, but it does not surprise me they would rush a untried aircraft into front line duty.
If 10 soldiers, fired so many rounds, so many enemy soldiers should be hit etc.! I forget the exact equation, but it does not surprise me they would rush a untried aircraft into front line duty.
