Remember Cope India.

[+pcpilot 181]

Yeah, I figured it wasnt a bright question even as a hypothetical given the age and outmoded avionics, etc. But I was curious what folks replies would be. I did notice the website posted by stick also had a page devoted to F-18 vs SU which I found interesting. I have also heard, I cant remember where, the F-18 was really something of a stopgap for the Navy till something better came along; is that true? If so, what, if anything is the Navy looking at these days to replace the Hornet? Im pretty ignorant of a lot as Im sure my questions reflect so bare with me. Im definately not knowledgable about this sort of thing. I know very little about tactics, the way electronics are employed, etc. But I do find it an interesting topic.

Edited May 8, 2008 by pcpilot

[MigBuster 2,861]

Well it seems that all the Navy projects like the Naval ATF etc got cancelled for various reasons - so they were probably happy to get the SH.

 

The US Navy is getting the F-35C AFAIK - although I will assume the FA-18E and F will serve alongside that for a while.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Well it seems that all the Navy projects like the Naval ATF etc got cancelled for various reasons - so they were probably happy to get the SH.

 

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. The Superbug was designed as a conventional, albeit it advanced, sort of back up strategy should things go awry with the A-12 Avenger and the NATF. Since the A-12 evolved into a kinda black hole for funds with next to no result, even threatening the funding for building new carriers at one point, it was decided to kill it off. Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure the NATF was threatened but the A-12's ballooning needs for funding or maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's how I read it to be.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, while the range of the 120D can be considered a better missile than the 54 despite its lesser range, the point is the Super Hornet also has less range than an F-14, thereby decreasing the maximum unrefueled intercept distance from a CBG. Of course, fleet defense is not the same today as it was in the 70s and 80s, so the USN seems comfortable with the reduction in range.

 

The NATF was cancelled because of how much it was going to cost the USN. It was decided the new Super Hornet could do most of that mission, replacing the F-14 that is, for a fraction of the price, and they were getting them to replace the A-6E anyway. The AESA radar it has is far superior to the F-14's anyway for sheer versatility, if not range (which is classified).

 

The original F/A-18A was never a stopgap, it was planned as what it turned out to be--the replacement for a variety of planes including the A-7 that could do both AA and AG combat in one sortie, as was proved in the Gulf War in 1991.

 

The biggest stopgap in service right now is the B-1B, with a mere 100 bought as it was only to serve until the ATB nee B-2 came into service. However, instead of 132 B-2s, we only bought 21, so the stopgap is now the numerically most significant strategic asset. Oddly the B-52 is still in 2nd place in terms of numbers, and won't be going away anytime soon.

[censored 0]

The biggest stopgap in service right now is the B-1B, with a mere 100 bought as it was only to serve until the ATB nee B-2 came into service. However, instead of 132 B-2s, we only bought 21, so the stopgap is now the numerically most significant strategic asset. Oddly the B-52 is still in 2nd place in terms of numbers, and won't be going away anytime soon.

 

The role of the B-1 has become even less than what you might imagine. Out of the 100 B-1Bs originally procured, a mere 65 remain in operation. The USAF started to decommission the B-1s in 2003, using the retired aircraft to help supply spares to keep the remaining bombers servicable. In contrast, there are 94 B-52H's still in active service today, and the USAF has announced plans to keep the B-52 in service out to 2040.

 

It's a matter of cost. The B-52 costs a fraction to operate, compared to the B-1B or B-2, and has far superior flight readiness rates. The B-1 and B-2 have both earned a reputation as shop queens, that spend more time under maintenance than flying. Whereas the B-2 has a truly unique capability to offer (stealth), the B-1 does not. There will continue to be B-52s flying long after the last B-1 is sent to the boneyard.

[+Dave 2,318]

The role of the B-1 has become even less than what you might imagine. Out of the 100 B-1Bs originally procured, a mere 65 remain in operation. The USAF started to decommission the B-1s in 2003, using the retired aircraft to help supply spares to keep the remaining bombers servicable. In contrast, there are 94 B-52H's still in active service today, and the USAF has announced plans to keep the B-52 in service out to 2040.

 

It's a matter of cost. The B-52 costs a fraction to operate, compared to the B-1B or B-2, and has far superior flight readiness rates. The B-1 and B-2 have both earned a reputation as shop queens, that spend more time under maintenance than flying. Whereas the B-2 has a truly unique capability to offer (stealth), the B-1 does not. There will continue to be B-52s flying long after the last B-1 is sent to the boneyard.

 

Actually you are quite incorrect on your idea about the B-1. It even has a greater role than it ever had as a nuclear bomber. At any given time in Iraq and or Afghanistan there is one or 2 airborne in the on call CAS role. They can stay airborne for hours and deliver PGM's with impunity. Most grunts love them because there is either and A-10, or a B-1 on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week if they are needed. Also most of those that were sent to the bone yard are now being put back into service. The depot at Tinker is full of them being upgraded and put back into the squadrons.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Saw an article recently about the B-1 being praised for its role over the Middle East and its ability to loiter over the area for ages with a massive conventional bomb load made it invaluable (if only I could find it again!)

[Stick 773]

Dont know about the article but read Killbox- its by a B-1 pilot who held(or still holds) the fastest round the world flight time.

Or one of the Dale Browns where he finally lets the Old Dog lie. Dale is pretty uncanny that way.In one of his novels he was rather prophetic about terrorists using civilian planes to kamikaze high value U.S targets-Storming Heaven I think if my memory serves me correct.

 

And besides the Bone puts sex back into sexy. I know THAT is one plane that could have the Flanker chasing its own butt up s**t creek and nothing could convince me otherwise. Sea level performance is the real deal.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Stick

[censored 0]

Actually you are quite incorrect on your idea about the B-1. It even has a greater role than it ever had as a nuclear bomber.

 

I agree that the B-1 has a greater role now than it did as a nuclear bomber. But I could say the same thing for the B-2 and B-52. In the post Cold War era, the conventional bombing role has taken center stage among the USAF's strategic bomber crews.

 

Also most of those that were sent to the bone yard are now being put back into service.

 

The USAF began drawing down its B-1 fleet in 2003, retiring 33 out of its remaining 93 B-1B's. In 2004, the US Congress earmarked funding to restore a handful of these aircraft to operational status. The funds only covered the return of 7 aircraft to service, however, and no additional funding has been forthcoming since then. The B-1 was, and remains a very expensive asset to maintain.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the B-1 has not served the US armed forces well. Nor am I suggesting that the performance of the B-1 aircrews and ground crews has been anything less than admirable. What I am saying is that on a cost-per-delivered payload basis, the B-1 is more expensive to operate and less reliable than the less complex, tried-and-true B-52G. To quote Airman magazine:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IB..._45/ai_77106313

 

The Buff fleet's cumulative mission capable rate from March 2000 through March 2001 was 80.5 percent, said Air Combat Command officials. The B-1 Lancer's rate was 53.7 percent and the B-2 Spirit's 30.3.

 

With a defense budget that is already being stretched to the breaking point, the USAF has had to make some hard and unpleasant choices. Looking out across the coming decades, the USAF has elected to continue to maintain the B-52 fleet as the least expensive, flying bomb truck that anyone can envision. Over 90-years after it first flew, the B-52 is expected to still be flying in operational service. No joke. By then, the B-1 will have been retired and replaced by the next generation of stealth bombers - beyond the B-2 - that USAF planners are already known to be contemplating.

[+ST0RM 145]

In the last two years, I havent seen a single B-52 in theater. It's been an all B-1 show.

 

The B-52s have been hanging out in Guam, swapping out duties with the B-2s. Although with the B-2s on temp hold, the BUFF has stepped up again. I dont know if they took over after the Bone blew up at the Deid last month.

 

Storm

[PIGHUNTA69 0]

Personally i would choose the F-15 over the Sukhoi, and the training that our pilots recieve is awesome. I think it was Chuck Yeager who said "It's the man, not the machine." proving that training is everything.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Personally i would choose the F-15 over the Sukhoi, and the training that our pilots recieve is awesome. I think it was Chuck Yeager who said "It's the man, not the machine." proving that training is everything.

 

Interesting - Well the training and tactics is very important - but thats to allow for the fact that the enemy may be using technology as advanced as themselves. I will assume CY made that quote before AESA radars and missiles with alledged >95% PK.

 

I dont think Chuck Yeager would be making that quote if he was flying an F-104A with AIM-9Bs against an F-35A with AMRAAMs 40 miles out - yes its still up to the F-35 pilot to not to make any rediculous mistakes - but its pretty likely the machine would be the deciding factor here.

[Stick 773]

Interesting - Well the training and tactics is very important - but thats to allow for the fact that the enemy may be using technology as advanced as themselves. I will assume CY made that quote before AESA radars and missiles with alledged >95% PK.

 

I dont think Chuck Yeager would be making that quote if he was flying an F-104A with AIM-9Bs against an F-35A with AMRAAMs 40 miles out - yes its still up to the F-35 pilot to not to make any rediculous mistakes - but its pretty likely the machine would be the deciding factor here.

.

But Ive seen a photograph of Yeager in an F-15 after doing Mach 1 again so you might not want to place any bets.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Not sure when that quote was made tbh

 

F-15 Vs F-35 from 40 miles out - the result will be different - because the RCS of the F-15 is probably a lot bigger then the F-104s - so potentially the F-15 would be shot down even quicker than the F-104

 

 

Now if Chuck Norris was flying the F-15 all bets are off!

[+Jug 99]

As I recall, the whole thing was stacked against the F-15s. They operated without AWACS, were plain Eagles without the AESA radar, and no JHMCS/AIM-9X. Call it a ploy to get more Raptors, or to allow the Indians to save face. Who knows. Although during the recent visit to the UK, the Flankers operated without radars and some leaked accounts stated the Typhoons did extremely well.

 

 

 

At that time, China was fielding the Flanker as quick as they could. Combined with them utilizing some Western tactics, they made some people a bit anxious. Now, reports are that the Su-30 has fallen out of favor with them as the J-10 has been shown to be better in trials and mock engagements. Again, the J-10 is an indigenous design, so maybe they are hoping to promote it's sales.

 

Storm

 

It's all about the money guys. USAF wants more F-22s, India wants more Su-30s, China wants more J-10s. The stage is set to favor the vendor and present his sales case. I have a Masters in statistical analysis and the only thing I have learned about statistics is that you get the answer you want. If you like the outcome it is the veritable truth, otherwise it is ruled an invalid sample. Yada-yada-yada. At the end of the day, you have to own a piece of turf to land on and 21 days to Baghdad is a memory most recent. As an AF guy, this hurts, but the USN is the real power in any battle scenario where they can play because they stand a better chance of recovering their air forces and pitching them back in the battle. The air war does not stand alone and their are many other things to occupy an Air Force in a pitched battle. For instance, how much would the air battle change if the Indian Navy surface fleet or ground forces (SAMs) were engaged at the same time. The modern battlefield is a complex scenario and those that work toward integrated forces have the true force multiplier, not the individual air machine. In that respect, remember the air war was over in the first 12 hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These scenarios presented by the various vendors are to sell their various products and are a real stretch to compare what machine will reign supreme. Bye the way, how long has the Eagle reigned supreme in hostile skys. Sooner or later all of the best are overtaken by time, then again that is what the F-22 and F-35 are all about. Wonder how the Su-30 would stand up against those two? I guess what I mean to say is that the Su-30 at the beginning of its service life may be a good competitor for the F-15 at the end of its service life. So?

[MigBuster 2,861]

Well the only thing I know about Statistics is to clarify where exactly they got that figure from! - so that summary of statistical anlysis sums it up for me

 

As for being reliant on runways its a shame the USAF didnt go for some F-35Bs (I know theres is no internal gun :tomato2: )- which you would hope could be deployed like the Harrier was.

 

It doesnt look likely that the SU-30 could compete with the 5th Generation Jets on a level playing field judging by how the simulated SUs and Migs (ie F-16s and F-15s) seem to have done in the Red Flag exercises (but then again I dont know the actual situations/limitations imposed there either)

[JediMaster 451]

F-15 = early 4th gen fighter

Su-30 = late 4th gen fighter

 

You'd hope it would present a problem for the F-15 at this point! However, it certainly isn't going to walk all over it, just as the F-15 won't walk all over the Flanker.

[Stick 773]

F-15 = early 4th gen fighter

Su-30 = late 4th gen fighter

 

You'd hope it would present a problem for the F-15 at this point! However, it certainly isn't going to walk all over it, just as the F-15 won't walk all over the Flanker.

 

When the SU isnt performing fancy manouevres and close in against a Mad Mike Martin it could....it just could, hell those fancy maneouvres may just be the cobra swaying before the strike...

Aggresiveness is good so long as it doesnt blind situational awareness. Crazy things happen in furballs. Sometimes things fly out of the devils arse.