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

[Caesar 305]

The pic was at Alert 5; F-22 dead center in the gunsight of a VFA-11 F/A-18 Super Bug. Good luck finding it now, it was a while ago, but in fact at least once the Raptor got beat by a Bug in BFM. I was pretty surprised to see that myself...

[Caesar 305]

 

This is the pic, second of two; the Bug's pulling a lot of alpha, but that thing's dead center. Evidentally the controversy comes with the range, as to whether or not the Bug was inside the minimum engagement range. The first pic has him at 900 feet, this one at 1000, so IDK what the final decision was, but he was centered in the gunsight.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Caesar

[eraser_tr 29]

No plane is invincible. Though I'm surprised the bug could see and compute a lead on the raptor.

[+Viggen 518]

It was an F/A-18F that got it. From a former Tomcat squadron of course!

[+Dave 2,318]

This is the pic, second of two; the Bug's pulling a lot of alpha, but that thing's dead center. Evidentally the controversy comes with the range, as to whether or not the Bug was inside the minimum engagement range. The first pic has him at 900 feet, this one at 1000, so IDK what the final decision was, but he was centered in the gunsight.

 

The Bug pilot broke the ROE to get that shot after knock it off had been called. But the Bug community doesn't let that be known. So in essence he had to break the rules. But it is a kill none the less.

 

From the Collier Award

 

http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/documents/CollierAward.pdf

 

 

The F-22 was specifically cited for its performance in the 2006 Northern Edge military exercise. During this large-scale, force-on-force exercise, Raptor pilots flew an amazing 97 percent of their scheduled missions, achieved an 80-to-1 kill ratio against their Red Air opponents, scored direct hits with 100 percent of their satellite guided 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition air-to-ground weapons, and increased overall situational awareness for the entire Blue Force through the F-22’s integrated avionics.

 

That one kill was the Bug kill...one kill to 80....I am not complaining.

[MiGMasher 0]

No plane is invincible. Though I'm surprised the bug could see and compute a lead on the raptor.

 

The Raptor is stealthy but not totally invisible to radar. As far I knew LO technology meant decreased radar detection range, so the fact that the bug was computing lead on the Raptor doesn't surprise me, given the close range.

[MiGMasher 0]

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.

 

Typhoid

former member of the Joint Staff and a JSO.

 

Thanks for the detailed explaination. I can't remember exactly the title of the GAO publication I got the figure of 127 F/A-18A-D Hornet-sized airplanes from but I knew it dealt with something along the lines of conventional versus nuclear carrier comparisons. I think the publication was rather dated, probably during the mid-90's I don't know exactly. But it was surprising that a carrier could have the capacity to carry that many such sized aircraft.

 

One thing I'm sad about though, Typhoid, is that you guys aren't going to visit us with your flattops in Sydney anymore now that you'll soon have an all-nuclear carrier force.

 

The last CVN to visit Sydney was I think during the 70's when the USS Enterprise (CVN-65/CVW-14 team) came in. After that we've just had CV's like Ranger, Independence, Kitty Hawk and Constellation - Sydney was made a nuclear-free zone, which means if I want to visit a docked USN CVN I have to go to bloody Hobart or Perth:(. I'm not quite sure but I think it was USS Midway that visited Sydney during the 1988 Bicentennial that we had, along with a BB!

Edited October 22, 2007 by MiGMasher

[Caesar 305]

I'd personally love to see some BFM stills from the Raptor's pit on the other 80 occasions.

 

Geez, we went from Turkey vs. Super Bug to the whole arsenal vs. itself!

Edited October 22, 2007 by Caesar

[+Dave 2,318]

The Raptor is stealthy but not totally invisible to radar. As far I knew LO technology meant decreased radar detection range, so the fact that the bug was computing lead on the Raptor doesn't surprise me, given the close range.

 

Well there is something called burn through range. It is when that the object is so close to the radar source that it will send back a reflection no matter what. In that case the F-22 is so close it would send back a reflection.

 

@Caesar

 

We sure did but its fun.

 

@ Typhoid

 

Learned something new today. Thank for that explanation.

[FastCargo 412]

Well there is something called burn through range. It is when that the object is so close to the radar source that it will send back a reflection no matter what. In that case the F-22 is so close it would send back a reflection.

 

Give that man a cigar!

 

If anyone thinks an aircraft the size of an F-22 can be made radar invisible at less than a 1/4 mile...you REALLY need to hit the books on radar theory, especially when dealing with high power radar, because you ain't got the whole picture.

 

And Typhoids explanation was dead on the money. As much as we sometimes complain about the application of 'jointness', it really has paid dividends in the real world. B-1s right now are the darlings of commanders on the ground in the sandbox...the ultimate in close air support.

 

Why? Because it follows one of the basics of warfare...getting there 'fastest with the mostest'.

 

What Bones have been doing is going into orbit over the battlefied with a buttload of JDAMs, and staying on station for HOURS. Someone calls, they 'sweep and smoke', haul ass over to where they're needed, drop as much or as little as the on scene commander needs, then go back to holding to wait for the next call. All without needing to hit a tanker. Think of it...a BOMBER doing close air support for Marine FACs...such a thing was considered too unwieldy even 15 years ago. As much as we would love our preferred service to be able to do it all, it really doesn't make fiscal sense anymore.

 

FastCargo

[+Dave 2,318]

FC

 

You should see the Bone with the litening pods.......

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Give that man a cigar!

 

If anyone thinks an aircraft the size of an F-22 can be made radar invisible at less than a 1/4 mile...you REALLY need to hit the books on radar theory, especially when dealing with high power radar, because you ain't got the whole picture.

 

And Typhoids explanation was dead on the money. As much as we sometimes complain about the application of 'jointness', it really has paid dividends in the real world. B-1s right now are the darlings of commanders on the ground in the sandbox...the ultimate in close air support.

 

Why? Because it follows one of the basics of warfare...getting there 'fastest with the mostest'.

 

What Bones have been doing is going into orbit over the battlefied with a buttload of JDAMs, and staying on station for HOURS. Someone calls, they 'sweep and smoke', haul ass over to where they're needed, drop as much or as little as the on scene commander needs, then go back to holding to wait for the next call. All without needing to hit a tanker. Think of it...a BOMBER doing close air support for Marine FACs...such a thing was considered too unwieldy even 15 years ago. As much as we would love our preferred service to be able to do it all, it really doesn't make fiscal sense anymore.

 

FastCargo

 

Aren't they doing that with B-52Hs in Afghanistan? Makes a lot of sense having that size airframe (even F-111/Su-24/Su-34 sized platforms) plus that size playload and having that ammount of fuel to burn between top ups. Would be a be much more effective than having Bugs or SuperBugs burning through the fuel while orbiting the AO... but try and get that through to your defence dept when they've made up their mind to by the Superbug!

 

 

(PS and given that at that point, your side OWNS airspace over the target, if not total air superiority, you won't need to worry much about stealth.)

[Southernap 1]

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.

 

You are correct that the F-14 couldn't land with the full load of AIM-54's back onboard. However the tactic that would call for all 6 AIM-54's being loaded was different then the usually BARCAP or TARCAP. In the late 70's the US Navy realized that the Soviets plan to counter a carrier battle group was to throw a regiement size of bombers (such as the Tu-95, Tu-16, TU-22, TU-22M) against the carrier battle group it was reasoned by the scientific studies that the Soviets did of battles that some missiles would get through to the carrier. These missiles would be mounting a full ton to half a ton of explosives along with whatever rocket fuel was left. That would be enough to achieve a mission kill, if not an out right kill, against the carriers. The mission kill being a destroyed flight deck.

So the US Navy created the tactic called "Chainsaw". Basic idea is this. With the E-2's being able to see out to 200nm from themselves and with the ability to datalink back not only to the carrier but also to the AWG-9 system on the F-14 as well. Everyone is full informed of the air battle. So the A-7's and A-6's squadrons would upload all the buddy stores that were onboard. An A-6 would accompany a pair of F-14's out to a point along the threat axis from where the Soviet bombers would come from. Until all 22-24 F-14's were airbone out to about 200-300nm from the center of the battle group. The A-6's would top off the F-14's till they were all the way out there, one the A-6's gave all they could they would run back top from either an A-7 or another A-6. Then it would run back out to top of those two F-14's. As the bombers approach, the E-2's would be tracking them until they got with in the 75-85% pK (precentage of kill) for the AIM-54's. At which point the F-14's who had been entirely slient at this point would fire up thier own radars systems and after being assigned thier own 6 targets to kill, a soviet bomber regiement was something like 25-30 bombers each capable of carrying 1-3 Anti-shipping missiles, ripple off thier AIM-54's they would then peel off and loiter in an assigned zone where they would meet the tankers and then roll back in to either go for Sidewinder/gun kills or just wait until the SAM shooters of the battle group did their thing. At which point the planes would either head back to the carrier to land, head to friendly terrority to land, or head to what was left of the battle group or friendly land and eject with the hope that the SAR bubbas were able to find them in time.

If the planes would land at the carrier then they would obvisouly be empty, the hope in this tactic was that the would widdle down the bombers of Soviet Naval Aviation down to something that would be managable by the SAM configured escorts.

[bucklehead101 29]

Thats pretty cool, i never heard that before.

Why couldnt the F-14 land with 6 AIM-54s? Would they scrape the deck when they caught the wire?

[Southernap 1]

The plane would be too heavy to land if it tried to land with all 6 AIM-54's onboard.

[bucklehead101 29]

Too heavy eh?

OK. thank you for explaining. I appreciate it.

[Southernap 1]

Yes, I forget offhand because I don't have my copy of the ordnance handling and loading manual in front of me, but if I remember right the AIM-54A's (which cost about 1 million a pop for the US tax payer) weighed in around 1000lbs total before you started to add the avionics coolant fluid for its own radar system. We use to add about gallon of coolant to the missile so it would start to tip the scales at around 1005-1010lbs. Multiply that number by six give you roughly 6030 additional pounds on an airframe that is already weighing in at around 50K to 60k at landing so the stress on the airframe, the tail hook, and the arresting gear engines would of been tremendous if the F-14 tried to land at near its take off weight of 72K fully loaded back on the carrier.

 

Digging around here is a shot I found of a VF-211 bird with six ATM-54C's or basically six training versions of the AIM-54C.

 

Not a problem in helping to explain it all Buckle.

[MiGMasher 0]

If anyone thinks an aircraft the size of an F-22 can be made radar invisible at less than a 1/4 mile...you REALLY need to hit the books on radar theory, especially when dealing with high power radar, because you ain't got the whole picture.

 

You can thank the media for ratcheting up the myth of stealth meaning totally invisible. I saw a graph once, and it compared the detectability range for the B-52 vs the B-2, and I think the B-52 could be easily detected well in excess of 100 miles away while the B-2 could be detected at a maximum of 20 miles. Accompanying pictures showed what it effectively meant when penetrating Soviet airspace, in that whereas the B-52 was effectively sandwiched by overlapping radar coverage the B-2 on the other hand had wide corridors/gaps where they could go through without being detected. Awesome capability.

[JediMaster 451]

IIRC, one of the things the USN loves about the Super Bug vs the old Hornet is the bring back payload. The legacy bird had such a low payload bring back margin that yes, they generally had to dump any unused bombs before landing. The Super Bug can bring them back to use another day.

[+Typhoid 231]

You are correct that the F-14 couldn't land with the full load of AIM-54's back onboard. However the tactic that would call for all 6 AIM-54's being loaded was different then the usually BARCAP or TARCAP. In the late 70's the US Navy realized that the Soviets plan to counter a carrier battle group was to throw a regiement size of bombers (such as the Tu-95, Tu-16, TU-22, TU-22M) against the carrier battle group it was reasoned by the scientific studies that the Soviets did of battles that some missiles would get through to the carrier. These missiles would be mounting a full ton to half a ton of explosives along with whatever rocket fuel was left. That would be enough to achieve a mission kill, if not an out right kill, against the carriers. The mission kill being a destroyed flight deck.

So the US Navy created the tactic called "Chainsaw". Basic idea is this. With the E-2's being able to see out to 200nm from themselves and with the ability to datalink back not only to the carrier but also to the AWG-9 system on the F-14 as well. Everyone is full informed of the air battle. So the A-7's and A-6's squadrons would upload all the buddy stores that were onboard. An A-6 would accompany a pair of F-14's out to a point along the threat axis from where the Soviet bombers would come from. Until all 22-24 F-14's were airbone out to about 200-300nm from the center of the battle group. The A-6's would top off the F-14's till they were all the way out there, one the A-6's gave all they could they would run back top from either an A-7 or another A-6. Then it would run back out to top of those two F-14's. As the bombers approach, the E-2's would be tracking them until they got with in the 75-85% pK (precentage of kill) for the AIM-54's. At which point the F-14's who had been entirely slient at this point would fire up thier own radars systems and after being assigned thier own 6 targets to kill, a soviet bomber regiement was something like 25-30 bombers each capable of carrying 1-3 Anti-shipping missiles, ripple off thier AIM-54's they would then peel off and loiter in an assigned zone where they would meet the tankers and then roll back in to either go for Sidewinder/gun kills or just wait until the SAM shooters of the battle group did their thing. At which point the planes would either head back to the carrier to land, head to friendly terrority to land, or head to what was left of the battle group or friendly land and eject with the hope that the SAR bubbas were able to find them in time.

If the planes would land at the carrier then they would obvisouly be empty, the hope in this tactic was that the would widdle down the bombers of Soviet Naval Aviation down to something that would be managable by the SAM configured escorts.

 

we also called it Vector Logic and then morphed it all into "The Outer Air Battle". Quite a complex tactic and very challenging to sit out there and run the radar, data link and air battle management radio networks. Fun......

 

[+Viggen 518]

If you want to see the "Chainsaw" in action read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.

[herman01 0]

Radar stealth is as strong as I want it to be in my own mind. If I believe it will always be invisible to any type of system then thats they way it is in the real world. Its just plain science and facts.

[JediMaster 451]

That's right! Hard science is NO MATCH for wishful thinking!!

[turkeydriver 4]

IIRC, one of the things the USN loves about the Super Bug vs the old Hornet is the bring back payload. The legacy bird had such a low payload bring back margin that yes, they generally had to dump any unused bombs before landing. The Super Bug can bring them back to use another day.

 

Eh, maybe an additional Jdam or HARM, but if you really pay attention to the navy web site daily photos, whenever a Superbug is loaded for a real mision, it has the SAME tank configuration as a legacy Hornet. Also, on the SH the centerline tank is extremely finicky-sometimes it will A-A fuel, sometimes not, for no apparent reason (most likely an EMI issue), so the tank is nothing more than drag after its used half the time. The SH is also maxed out on growth potential-Boeing and LM IIRC, are working on installing an IRST ( IRST are better "tuned" for A-A targetting, while LANTIRN and the like are better for A-G lasing and target ID) ON a 400 gallon centerline tank-its stupid IMHO-there isnt room in the jet, so they're putting needed avionics in a bigger, draggier tank, that will still offer 300 gallons of fuel.

 

The jet meets the current needs of the navy, and does have sweet avionics, but it is only "better" than tomcats that are a minimum of ten years older, with 1970s technology, because of its avionics.

Grumman dropped bombs off the tomcat in the 1970s because the marines were wanting it.

The AST-21 (final upgraded tomcat derivative-past Quickstrike and ST-21) was a higher-cost new build jet that would have paralleled the SH program in cost. It could easily carry more, and was also looked to replace the EA-6B intruder.

The maintenance issue is pretty much null and void-when the tomcat entered the fleet, it was advertised to be much lower in maintenance cost to the F-4, because it was new. The SH composite airframe simply CANNOT hold up to 30 years of stress. Yeah its cheaper in the short run-but will end up in the boneyard alot sooner. Remember, VFA-87 and VFA-15(115?) are active navy hornet squads that transitioned BACK to the F/A-18A+ because their F/A-18Cs have so little "trap" life left in them. One thing about that jet that still remains is that it cannot double cycle and still must return to the carrier more and launch more, wearing out the airframe.

Sorry, I'll admit the SH is a better CAS jet only because of avionics that any jet could get upgraded with, and its a good slow fighter(for a few turns before it runs outta schlitz), and its really nice to newbie pilots and easier to land on the boat,

But the raw airframe aand combat performance can't and were never designed to, replace the tomcat.

Its a nice stopgap though.

[herman01 0]

Bingo! Jedi Im glad someone else has figured it out to.