F-14 Tomcat vs the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Thread

[eraser_tr 29]

I thought the F-35 was supposed to be even stealthier because of what they learned making the F-22?

 

What is the T/W ratio for the JSF compared to competing planes anyway?

[+Gocad 26]

I thought the F-35 was supposed to be even stealthier because of what they learned making the F-22?

 

If it were, then how come it's going to be exported while the F-22 is not?

[JediMaster 451]

The F-35 will have less costly stealth, but I think it's mostly the airframe while the F-22 has its emissions strictly regulated to a higher degree.

 

The F-35's single engine will put out over 40,000lbs of thrust, while the F-16's never broke 30,000. In combat loadouts the F-35 should have a better T/W ratio. Only an F-16 carrying nothing but 2 missiles could likely match it, but the F-35 will have far greater range without tanks. Of course, right now it's hard to say what the combat weight of the F-35 will be, although it seems the T/W ratio may be just better than 1 most of the time.

 

F-35A weighs 8k lbs more empty, but its engine has more than 10k more thrust while its MTOW is 18k lbs higher. In fact, the F-35A can carry as much fuel as an empty F-16 weighs!!

[+Dave 2,318]

We need to get JSF Aggie in on this conversation since he works in the F-35 program.

[eraser_tr 29]

Yeah, but what could he say we probably haven't heard already, we don't want him going on a federal vacation to scenic Ft. Leavenworth

[Guest Saganuay82]

Wasn't this a F-18 / F-14 thread?

[+Typhoid 231]

Wasn't this a F-18 / F-14 thread?

 

it kinda morphed a bit....

[Guest Saganuay82]

it kinda morphed a bit....

 

......Stay on target!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the same Stormtrooper from SHQ?

[+JSF_Aggie 1,291]

What's an F-35?????? I've never heard of it. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll post some info tonight, when I get a sec.

[+Dave 2,318]

Be interesting to see what you have to say about it since most of the stuff we hear is always conflicting.

[+Typhoid 231]

......Stay on target!!!!!!!!!

 

that's no fun....

 

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

that's no fun....

 

 

I gots 24 bombs and one target?? Seems like a waste to me.

 

Anyways, given the method of long loiter times and varied payloads, isn't the Family model Superbug more suited to this kind of op than the Tommies?

[JediMaster 451]

The YF-17 and F-18 have as much in common as the F-18 and Super Bug do. I would like to see a pic of the YF-17 with a Super Bug, though. Having seen the others compared against each other, it would be very interesting.

[+Typhoid 231]

I gots 24 bombs and one target?? Seems like a waste to me.

 

Anyways, given the method of long loiter times and varied payloads, isn't the Family model Superbug more suited to this kind of op than the Tommies?

 

you lost me somewhere......

 

[herman01 0]

Im sure the bug and superbug have adequate power.

Edited October 19, 2007 by herman01

[+Typhoid 231]

Im sure the bug and superbug have adequate power.

 

the issue is one of fuel and range. The Hornets don't have it without plugging into a grunch of tankers or stealing a spare a KC-135 to pull them along (as they did over Afghanistan)

 

The Super Bug is much better than the original, but it still only brings 2/3 the payload at 2/3 the range of what a Strike Kitty could do.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Typhoid

[ironroad 218]

the issue is one of fuel and range. The Hornets don't have it without plugging into a grunch of tankers or stealing a spare a KC-135 to pull them along (as they did over Afghanistan)

 

The Super Bug is much better than the original, but it still only brings 2/3 the payload at 2/3 the range of what a Strike Kitty could do.

 

I will have to disagree with you there. The tomcat generally only carried two lgbs on the forward two pallets and maybe 4 dumb or gps bombs all togther. The right wing root was taken up by the Lantrin the left a sparrow, two winders, and maybe if LGBs where loaded possibly a sparrow on on rear.

 

Now the suphornet is supposedly much slower than the legacy at low atl, it has 3 stations on each wing, plus centerline. The cheek stations may be loaded with flir and sparrow/amraams, wingtip winders, centerline fuel, and the two inline stations fuel. That leaves four more hard points for varied ordinance. Be it A/A, A/G, fuel, anti-radar, cruise missles, or JSOWs. So in the A/G arena the superbug packs more of punch. The superhornet and even the legacy can bring (although limited) varied types ordnance to the fight and it has the software and cpu cabilities to allow the crew to mix and match weapons as well. So in areas were range isn't much of an issue, ie forward deployed in Iraq or operating of carriers in littoral areas (where the navy and marines are increasingly starting to operate) the hornet is a swiss army knife. The tomact, although varied weapons were tested on it (especially on the D), was limited to sparrows, winders, 4 dumb bombs, 4 JDAMs, or 2 lgbs.

 

But....

 

The tomcat has speed, range, and loiter time. And up until 2003 the ability to reach out and touch someone.

 

Now I do not think it was a wise move to use all pissants...or errr I mean hornets to replace the F-14 in the role of intercept, fleet defense, and barrier combat air patrol (and it could come back to bite everyone in the ass) but the F-18s series clearly has advantages over the Turkey in A/G arena. And as much as I dislike the hornet, even F-22s have problems trying to "dance" with them. It might not be a mach 2 plane, but it can move like no one's business. Hopefully the Navy will wise up and put someone money into a dedicated tanker fleet that could rival that of the KA-3.

Edited October 19, 2007 by ironroad

[+Typhoid 231]

I will have to disagree with you there. The tomcat generally only carried two lgbs on the forward two pallets and maybe 4 dumb or gps bombs all togther. The right wing root was taken up by the Lantrin the left a sparrow, two winders, and maybe if LGBs where loaded possibly a sparrow on on rear.

 

Now the suphornet is supposedly much slower than the legacy at low atl, it has 3 stations on each wing, plus centerline. The cheek stations may be loaded with flir and sparrow/amraams, wingtip winders, centerline fuel, and the two inline stations fuel. That leaves four more hard points for varied ordinance. Be it A/A, A/G, fuel, anti-radar, cruise missles, or JSOWs. So in the A/G arena the superbug packs more of punch. The superhornet and even the legacy can bring (although limited) varied types ordnance to the fight and it has the software and cpu cabilities to allow the crew to mix and match weapons as well. So in areas were range isn't much of an issue, ie forward deployed in Iraq or operating of carriers in littoral areas (where the navy and marines are increasingly starting to operate) the hornet is a swiss army knife. The tomact, although varied weapons were tested on it (especially on the D), was limited to sparrows, winders, 4 dumb bombs, 4 JDAMs, or 2 lgbs.

 

But....

 

The tomcat has speed, range, and loiter time. And up until 2003 the ability to reach out and touch someone.

 

Now I do not think it was a wise move to use all pissants...or errr I mean hornets to replace the F-14 in the role of intercept, fleet defense, and barrier combat air patrol (and it could come back to bite everyone in the ass) but the F-18s series clearly has advantages over the Turkey in A/G arena. And as much as I dislike the hornet, even F-22s have problems trying to "dance" with them. It might not be a mach 2 plane, but it can move like no one's business. Hopefully the Navy will wise up and put someone money into a dedicated tanker fleet that could rival that of the KA-3.

 

you are missing the point. payload at range is the issue. Any strike aircraft has a maximum payload that includes fuel. How much fuel it carries determines the range at which it can reach. You can add fuel in flight but your strike planning has to take into account how much fuel you can get airborne and trade off between the weapons payload.

 

How many weapons stations are on a given airframe are completely irrelevant. Its how much weapons weight can be loaded on after you determine how much fuel you need to get to the target and back and how much of that fuel you can get airborne. (and don't forget max carrier launch weight) The F-14D could carry more weight in weapons payload because it carried WAY more fuel internal and had some flexibility in that trade off equation. The Hornet, even the Super Hornet, does not. In order to get to any target beyond about 100nm and back again it has to either load fuel tanks in place of weapons and/or take gas airborne in order to have a combat package of fuel over the target area. And since carriers generally like to not be at the water's edge......

 

As an example, over Afghanistan the F-18C's typically carried ONE 500lb lgb and everything else was fuel tanks, and they still would drain a KC-135 or an RAF Victor inbound and outbound. With the F-18E that goes up to 3 lgbs.

 

I've done some of this strike planning for real. Trust me on this, the Bug carried half the bomb weight half the range as the F-14D or A-6E, and the Super Bug only brought that up to 2/3 at 2/3 the range. To go any further requires USAF tanker support.

 

Within its range, the Hornet series are a fantastic aircraft and their sortie generation rate (based on maintenance manhours per flight hour) cannot be beat. Your comment about a Swiss Army knife and the greater variety of weapons are right on. But we lost range and payload. We made up payload to some extent by using all PGM to change the equation into target points destroyed rather than ordanance weight over the target. But the argument then becomes "how many target points could we have destroyed per sortie if we had a longer range, heavier payload strike aircraft such as the F-14D or A-6F or A-12?". The answer is we could have done a lot more. B-1's carrying 84 JDAMs for example.

 

But the bottom line was $$$. There weren't enough $$$ in the budget to do anything more than field a 2/3 size airwing on our carriers using the lowest cost option which was the Hornet. Had we gone any other route, our airwings would today consist of 1/2 the number of aircraft that are presently on them, which in turn is 2/3 the number we used to have on them. It all boils down to $$$ in a Congressionally passed and Presidentially signed budget authorization. Lacking that........

Edited October 19, 2007 by Typhoid

[+Viggen 518]

Isn't it also true though that a Hornet had to dump its tanks and bombs in the ocean right before landing while a Tomcat could have landed fully loaded? I've never seen a fully loaded Hornet let alone a some what loaded Hornet land on a carrier. So if this is true wouldn't the Navy be loosing money on lost ordinance?

[MiGMasher 0]

But the bottom line was $$$. There weren't enough $$$ in the budget to do anything more than field a 2/3 size airwing on our carriers using the lowest cost option which was the Hornet. Had we gone any other route, our airwings would today consist of 1/2 the number of aircraft that are presently on them, which in turn is 2/3 the number we used to have on them. It all boils down to $$$ in a Congressionally passed and Presidentially signed budget authorization. Lacking that........

 

Hey Typhoid, is it true that Nimitz-class carriers can carry a maximum of 127 F-18-sized aircraft?

[Talos 0]

If I remember correctly, one of the few loadouts that a Tomcat couldn't land with was a full load of 6 AIM-54s, which was one reason it was very rarely ever carried.

[ironroad 218]

Isn't it also true though that a Hornet had to dump its tanks and bombs in the ocean right before landing while a Tomcat could have landed fully loaded? I've never seen a fully loaded Hornet let alone a some what loaded Hornet land on a carrier. So if this is true wouldn't the Navy be loosing money on lost ordinance?

 

Yep, most planes do not bring stuff back on board (especially the hornet.) Not to sure of the A-6 or F-14.

 

 

Typhoid, I see where you are coming from and you are hitting points right on, but where do you think the Navy could have better ulitized money/resources for a better plane? It seems like during the late 90s the USN was dead set on placing all of its eggs in the hornet basket while waiting another century for the JSF to come through.

[+Typhoid 231]

Yep, most planes do not bring stuff back on board (especially the hornet.) Not to sure of the A-6 or F-14.

Typhoid, I see where you are coming from and you are hitting points right on, but where do you think the Navy could have better ulitized money/resources for a better plane? It seems like during the late 90s the USN was dead set on placing all of its eggs in the hornet basket while waiting another century for the JSF to come through.

 

Well, the leadership of the USN was dead-set on doing that for the simple reason that that was all we could afford. There was a very vocal group within Naval Carrier Aviation that disagreed with that - we all now have "Retired" after our ranks.....

 

The decision quite simply was based on $$$ and what was projected to be available in the years ahead. And that projection was BEFORE the Clinton years during which what is charitably called an "acquisition gap" occured. So it was the right decision based on affordability, even though we lost a lot of carrier based capabilities which we still are no where near regaining. But, having that said that, the move to precision guided weapons replaced the overall strike potential based on how many targets said reduced airwing could destroy.

 

I don't know what other option we could have done and not cratered during program execution during the Clinton meat-axe approach to military budget drills. And please don't take that as a political comment - simply a fact of military procurement during those years. Had we gone the Tomcat 21 route, we'd have had a cancelled program and today would have no Super Hornets, only a handful of reworked C's and D's.

 

wrt to some other questions -

 

no, the Nimitz class cannot carry 127 Hornets. Now the explanation; The "deck multiple" is a figure used to measure the capacity of carrier and includes the hangar deck and flight deck. It used to be measured using the A-7 equal to one and then every other aircraft would be a multiple of that. I don't remember all of the numbers but for example the F-14 was somewhere around 1.7 and the F-4 was 1.4, the E-2 was 2 something. You added up your airwing multiples to find your airwing Deck Multiple and then compared that to the Deck Multiple of the carrier. I just don't recall what the deck multiple was of the classes, but even if a Nimitz could take 127, that didn't mean you could actually load that number of that plane on board. You would have to sacrifice all of the other capabilities that a balanced Carrier Air Wing brings to the fight. Since the A-7 is no longer relevant, the Navy not too long ago recalculated the deck multiple based on the F-18 (not the Super Hornet). I don't know what those new numbers are, I'll look them up though. But even if it is 127, the same comment applies - you cannot load 127 Hornets on board and go do something because you don't have the balanced capabilities of a modern Carrier Air Wing if you did that. I do know that the carriers are today operating at about 2/3 of their Deck Multiple simply because since that dark day in January some years ago, we have never bought enough planes to fill the decks.

 

The F-14 could not bring back 6 Phoenix, it could bring back 4. Every plane does have a "max trap" weight which means you have to dump fuel or weapons or both to get down to max trap. Sea Story excursion - the EA-3 was so loaded down with electronic stuff and crew that its max trap left very little fuel margin. But they would have to tank many times to preserve their holding time and make their approach time, and then have to dump fuel on downwind and report "Bingo fuel" on the ball. Always fun to watch the Air Boss go through the overhead when that happened.......

 

 

I don't know what the F-18 max trap is and how much they can bring aboard. I doubt they would have to dump their one bomb with empty external fuel tanks.

 

one more comment on overall procurement. In order to stretch scarce military procurement dollars, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) was established with the Joint Staff. They review the various service requirements and make the decision from the overall joint perspective of what tradeoffs to make to balance capabilities across the services while still meeting the theater commanders' requirements and budget constraints. Of relevance to this debate was the deliberate and concious decision by the JROC to drop the medium strike capability from the USN and assign those strike target coverage roles to the USAF heavy bomber force. So if you really want to know how the theater commander will hit a hard target deep in hostile territory - its called the B-52, B-1 and B-2 along with the cruise missile arsenal from ships and bombers. That contributed to the demise of the carrier based medium strike capability and the decision to go Hornets and cancel the strike Tomcat variants, A-6F and A-12. As a result, during Desert Fox, you had some F-14D hit some targets but many of the deep strikes were done with B-1's escorted by carrier based F-14s and HARM equiped F-18's. And later during the Afghanistan operations, carrier based F-18's were refueled by KC-135's. The joint solution is what has maintained our overall military capabilities.

 

Typhoid

former member of the Joint Staff and a JSO.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Typhoid

[+Dave 2,318]

And as much as I dislike the hornet, even F-22s have problems trying to "dance" with them.

 

Where did you read that at? That is not even remotely true. In every exercise the F-22 has been in against Hornets, Eagles you name it, it has "killed" them by the bushel load. Setting records to boot. That includes BVR and knife fights. In fact one of my AWACS controllers quotes a Bug pilot who said "Oh my god, you should see this maneuver that 22 just did to kill me......" I wonder if they would let me have a copy of that tape? Make no mistake, nothing in our inventory is "dancing" with the F-22 and surviving. Ask the Eagle drivers.....they haven't even come close to winning one yet.

[eraser_tr 29]

I heard one F-22 got caught low and slow in the sights of an F-18, not sure which variant.