Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
So we replaced the F14 with the F/A-18 to stop the flow of parts on the black market to Iran....
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Disgusting, ain't it? Nothing could "replace" the Tomcat, but I guess they decided the Super Hornet was an acceptable substitute.So we replaced the F14 with the F/A-18 to stop the flow of parts on the black market to Iran....
True enough, but when the bad gets so bad you can't afford it, you lose the good as well. And then there's the hidden factor. As long as we operated and supported Tomcats, the black market supply of parts and support to Iran couldn't be stopped. Somehow that became more important than the additional marginal utility of the F14 fleet.
Cheers,
Wes
".it's easier to work on...." and cheaper to buy and support, and requires less of a logistical commitment (as jetcal pointed out), has newer technology onboard, and most important, is manufactured in a district that votes for the correct party. When you're thinking of sending an air wing to sea in the finite space of a carrier for six or more months, logistics is a biggie, easier and cheaper if they're only supporting two types of tactical jets, and both of the same family. You wonder how they did it on Yankee Station back in the day with seven or more aircraft types, including ASW, AEW, and helos. And the only serious shortcoming of the Hornet is range, as a few tenths of a mach at the high end is of dubious practical value, and the max load capacity of the F14, as stated in most specs listings, is, I'm told, an optimistic figure not often achieved in actual operations. Operationally, I'm told the F18 isn't far behind. You gotta remember, the F14 was designed as a pure fighter interceptor, and mud pounding wasn't part of the plan. The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.However, the plane that is slower, doesn't carry as much and has a shorter range gets the nod because....it's easier to work on....
I don't have the numbers, but the folks who were doing it, supporting it, supplying it, financing it, and planning for it reported that it was nudging the prohibitive zone. I'm sure the reliability and parts issues mentioned by jetcal had a part in it.Were they THAT bad?
(maintenance hrs/per Flt hour approx)?
I'm used to R/W so it won't surprise me....
The F/A-18 was designed….from The GET-GO as the X/YF-17....The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.
So the F-14 was dropped because Cheney didn't like it? (well, Grumman, in general)…politicians...
However, the plane that is slower, doesn't carry as much and has a shorter range gets the nod because....it's easier to work on....
S/W for the AFCS, composite materials affecting wing shape, and CFD for wing airflow have negated the need for V/G. (IMO)Of the "swing wings", (F-111, F-14, B-1) only the B-1 survives, and mostly due to necessity of airframes rather than a vindication of design. While the variable geometry wing theory was very popular at one time resulting in the three I listed (ignoring Soviet aircraft which arguably was stolen tech), there is a reason they are not in use today. For the given tech of the day, they were very heavy, expensive to manufacture, maintenance intensive and overly complicated to work properly. The weight perhaps the largest sin. I can tell you from experience that working the hydraulics on a Bone is no picnic.
".it's easier to work on...." and cheaper to buy and support, and requires less of a logistical commitment (as jetcal pointed out), has newer technology onboard, and most important, is manufactured in a district that votes for the correct party. When you're thinking of sending an air wing to sea in the finite space of a carrier for six or more months, logistics is a biggie, easier and cheaper if they're only supporting two types of tactical jets, and both of the same family. You wonder how they did it on Yankee Station back in the day with seven or more aircraft types, including ASW, AEW, and helos. And the only serious shortcoming of the Hornet is range, as a few tenths of a mach at the high end is of dubious practical value, and the max load capacity of the F14, as stated in most specs listings, is, I'm told, an optimistic figure not often achieved in actual operations. Operationally, I'm told the F18 isn't far behind. You gotta remember, the F14 was designed as a pure fighter interceptor, and mud pounding wasn't part of the plan. The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.
While I miss the ol 'cat, I guess I can sort of understand the reasoning.
Cheers,
Wes
Well you worked on 'em, and I was leaving just as they were coming on board, but I sure saw a lot of hype for them about that time, and one slogan sticks in my mind: "Not a pound for air to ground." All the publicity and briefing info was about long range interceptor and air superiority fighter and "world's best dogfighter" and "Anytime, baby!", and "No points for second place". And talking with the crews at every opportunity it was all about ACM and air-to-air. I'm honestly surprised to hear about the A/G switch being there since day one. Did it control weapons, or radar modes? I remember being briefed that one of the bragging points of the mighty AWG9 was that it was one of the first Air Intercept radars to have ground mapping capability.The -14 always had a A/G mode on the stick, and the D would carry 1K lbs a 110NM further than a -18E. Too bad the Navy didn't purse the TC21. They might have had a replacement for both the early -14 and the A-6 with that nice fixed wing while dropping some serious weight.
I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.The F/A-18 was designed….from The GET-GO as the X/YF-17.
It was Northrup's entry into the competition for the low altitude interceptor contract that eventually went to the General Dynamic F-16.
LANTIRN was the big motivator along with the loss of the A-6.I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.
Cheers,
Wes
I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.
Cheers,
Wes
So you were wrong when you posted that the Hornet (i.e., F/A-18) was designed, "...from the get-go...", as a Fighter/Bomber.I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor...
Wes
No, the F-17 started out as a lightweight land based fighter. It was developed into the F-18 the same way the F4D was developed into the F5D, or the MiG-15 into the MiG-17, or the F-18C into the F-18E.So you were wrong when you posted that the Hornet (i.e., F/A-18) was designed, "...from the get-go...", as a Fighter/Bomber.
Elvis
Well, wait a minute....The F-14 had already replaced the F-4, so how could the F/A-18 replace a fighter that had already been replaced?The -18 was less expensive, had a better spotting factor and compared the F-4 and A-7 much better fire control. It was originally only supposed to replace those two aircraft.