F/A-18F Super Hornet

[+Swordsman422 61]

I can't believe that I actually want this one. Go ahead Dave, smack me on the back of the head.

[+Dave 2,319]

I can't believe that I actually want this one. Go ahead Dave, smack me on the back of the head.

 

I can't, because I want one too for some serious A2G work. But I still say it is not a fleet defender.

[+EricJ 3,994]

There's a good topic I found last night (Vampyre can probably tell you) on the Fighter Ops forums that Sundowner from Poland outlines some deficiencies (thrust to weight, speed of course critical) of the SH. I agree to the point that if it had a better speed and longer ranged armament, it could do the job as effective as the Tomcat. But that's pretty much what the SH is good for, bombing the bejeezus (okay, if the detractors are right, reach it) out of somebody, as it's got the space and pylons for it. Given the report from Carlo Kopp it sheds some more light on the subject. And a topic I read on the VNFA website pretty much said that the Navy needed something New NOW. The Tomcat will always be a fond memory, but when you're looking at basically spending alot of money to revamp a 1970s era aircraft to which parts are becoming scarce (factories aren't even producing the parts, at least some of them, and more than likely won't retool, and to update the fire control suite, you had to literally rewire it, and there wasn't any emphasis for that. They got enough money to at least get the LANTIRN pods for it, which I'm sure alot of grunts downrange are glad for), and you have to use scrap from AMARC, which adds to the bill. Instead you got the bean counters saying "Hey this plane, it's not as great as the Tomcat, it saves money and furthermore, it's rolling off the assembly line, and we don't have to search the whole planet for spares." Plus pilots like the reliability, so that's more planes in the air, and etc. etc. About the only mission I would say in somewhat defense of the SH, is that Tomcat never could to airborne refuelling, or at least perform the tanker role which was of course lost when the KA-6D was retired too. Could they have modified Tomcats? Of course, but that didn't happen. Sure the SH needs more fuel, but nobody (not even the Navy bean counters) wanted to improve the Tomcat either, as it itself was a victim of politics. I mean we can always like or hate the SH, and forever love the Tomcat, but whatever we think, the US Navy made it's decision, right or wrong, and we just have to live with their decision.

[JediMaster 451]

The USN was supposed to get 3 new planes, one to replace the A-6 (A-12), one to replace the F/A-18A/C (JAST), and one to replace the F-14 (NATF).

In the event, 2 of the 3 were cancelled (mostly due to money) and the other became the still-waiting-for F-35.

The SH was rushed into development primarily to replace the A-6 but also the F-14 as they decided to retire them.

[jodandawg 18]

looking great. im so happy!!

[+drdoyo 2]

Don't forget that the days of a CVBG in self defense against Kuznetsovs sporting Flankers, Fulkrums, and Frogfoots, and supported by Kievs with their ASW helos, and Foragers/Freestyles, with a screen of a Moskva or two, and Slavas with their 300 mile ssm/asm armament with Udaloys and Sovremmneys in close ASW/AAW escort is a thing of the past....or at least quite unlikely. the current threat to a CVBG is not anywhere near the level it was during the cold war. Today the Air Wing of a single CVN outnumbers the ariforces of many potentially hostile countries, and 3 or 4 of these Air Wings can be brought to bear in short order.

 

I'm forever fond of the Tomcat, but the threat isn't the same. The Super Bug costs less to operate, and is updateable. It isn't worn out by thousands of flight hours per airframe. It was built for more roles as dictated by operational nessessity. And it has more modern qualities required in today's combat environment.

 

I think based on all of those considerations the Navy and (I'm going to be very loose with praise here) Congress made the right decision. My fondness for the Tomcat does not however allow me to aggree with it's retirement but I can accept it.

 

So, How is the Super Bug comming along? I've been away a few days at work.

[+Dave 2,319]

I have grown to like the SH. I just miss the Tomcat, I only got to see perform at an airshow one time. Something I will never forget.

 

Anytime Baby!

[Caesar 305]

ST21 all the way, Baby! (I wish.) I still find it amazing that the Navy considered the Tomcat it's strike platform of choice to the day it left the field, and it was continuously upgraded and updated through to the last cruise. Had they gone with the ST21, they would have had an a/c that would have been very close to filling the gap left by the A-6, and comparable in strike load to the Strike Eagle. But they didn't, and at the time with the Soviet Union just collapsing, the Tomcat community weary of the strike role, and some polotics that I'm not getting into they went for the "light(er)" fighter. The real axe was the ceasing of making new 'Cats back in '91. Nothing for the frames to do but get older, take longer to fix and rack up hours. The Bug was there at the right time and they went with that. No doubt over time it'll prove itself, as it is right now, and I have no doubt it'll shape up to be a great a/c in history, hell it already beat the Raptor in BFM...but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Still, I'd definately like to see this a/c in WoE. Keep up the good work, Marc.

[topcat II 6]

Very nice Thank You!!!

[+Swordsman422 61]

At least the Super Hornet can cross the International Date Line without the flight computer crashing from a program error.

[+EricJ 3,994]

Those are things, you just don't or didn't want to know...

[serverandenforcer 33]

Those are things, you just don't or didn't want to know...

 

Ignorance is bliss untill a flight computer crashes. I'd rather know and be ready than not know and be sorry.

[+EricJ 3,994]

No comment.

[+Dave 2,319]

At least the Super Hornet can cross the International Date Line without the flight computer crashing from a program error.

 

Well that doesn't have anything to do with the F-22 as an aircraft, that has to with some software engineer who should be out of a job by now. I mean lets not tit for tat here, the SH didn't have teething problems? Oh yeah it did...

[+EricJ 3,994]

I'm not trying to tit for tat that's for sure, but looking at it another way... The Super Hornet is what the Tomcat was lacking, but on other hand, the Super Hornet is lacking what the Tomcat had. So it's like a real no-win tradeoff. They really are polar opposites if you think about it as far as capabilities between the two.

[+Dave 2,319]

I'm not trying to tit for tat that's for sure, but looking at it another way... The Super Hornet is what the Tomcat was lacking, but on other hand, the Super Hornet is lacking what the Tomcat had. So it's like a real no-win tradeoff. They really are polar opposites if you think about it as far as capabilities between the two.

 

100% agreed. You would think someone would of thought of that instead of some guys on a forum. Maybe we should be the engineers.

[+EricJ 3,994]

lol then the world truly wouldn't be safe

[eraser_tr 29]

Nevermind that the superkitty could carry a heavier bomb load, farther. So actually they lost out on both A2A and A2G capability for the sake of cost. Not that cost has ever mattered before....

[Redddevil911 0]

The life of the Cat was cut short because of the latest and greatest thing from the makers of the superbugs, this is what the reps for the companies do and do it well and not to mention the kick backs. Notice all he high ranking military guys always seem to land the big consulting jobs with companies like Boeing and Lockheed after leaving the service. It was done to keep the Navy on the cutting edge of technology! Well I for one still think the F14 was right there all the old girl needed was to be updated. To this day she could out fly anything!

Edited April 21, 2007 by Redddevil911

[+Swordsman422 61]

Well that doesn't have anything to do with the F-22 as an aircraft, that has to with some software engineer who should be out of a job by now. I mean lets not tit for tat here, the SH didn't have teething problems? Oh yeah it did...

 

Oh, nothing against the F/A-22 really. Just the developement issues present in every new aircraft, as well as a little friendly elbowing. And at least the problem was uncovered NOW, and not, say, when the aircraft in question happened to wander across the date line in the midst of aerial combat.

 

I think, for the war we have now, the Superhornet was a smart decision. But in a larger-scale conflict against a well-equipped and trained enemy, choosing the Superhornet alone may prove a regrettable decision.

 

I also think it entirely regrettable that we're letting PLAN officers crawl all over the USS Harry Truman.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Swordsman422

[+Dave 2,319]

You are very correct. Also the F-22 is no longer the F/A-22, the USAF dropped the A awhile ago. Some said it sounded too Navy.

[+EricJ 3,994]

Yeah that'd be something wouldn't it? I mean seriously you'd have to add two letters to all your stationary! Oh no!

 

Any updates Marcfighter?

[+Swordsman422 61]

The F/A doesn't sound too Navy, but by dropping the A I guess Lockheed is also admitting it doesn't have realistic a2g expectations. No bombs to ruin the radar return. Which, isn't mud-moving one of the roles of the -35 anyway?

 

BTW, I've been taking a look at the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System and it's "look at it/shoot at it capabilities". Like something out of Firefox. Kinda scary stuff, considering that we're just now getting that and other countries have had it for a while.

[+Dave 2,319]

The F/A doesn't sound too Navy, but by dropping the A I guess Lockheed is also admitting it doesn't have realistic a2g expectations. No bombs to ruin the radar return. Which, isn't mud-moving one of the roles of the -35 anyway?

 

BTW, I've been taking a look at the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System and it's "look at it/shoot at it capabilities". Like something out of Firefox. Kinda scary stuff, considering that we're just now getting that and other countries have had it for a while.

 

The F-22 is a quite capable A2G platform. Its causing the retirement of the F-117. I can carry is bombs internally just like the F-117. It can also carry them externally if the mission doesn't require a stealth approach. The F/A was given to it to appease congress on the justification of the cost for the aircraft. Then after the "debate" was over the USAF conveniently changed it back.

[+Swordsman422 61]

Ah, okay. I had heard unfortunate rumors about the a2g capabilities of the F-22.

 

I actually like the F/A designator. it may be a bit of a mouthful but I like that the designator indicates it can kill something anywhere.