PLANE Stupid

[Meathead 1]

This seems like typical 'change of the times' thinking on behalf of the brass higher-ups. Brings to mind the sixties mentality of no guns in the F-4 and the multi-service platform in the F-111. These were believed to be the way of the future until a conflict proved them wrong. As places such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela and China develop weapons to counter US carrier groups, only a conflict will once again prove the need for specialized air-superiority and other aircraft.

[gbnavy61 1]

Disagree with Viper in two respects:

 

1) "Fleet Defender" is a clever phrase but it doesn't really describe what the Tomcat was built to do. "Air supremacy fighter" as RADM Gillcrist put it, is a much better description. Yes, long-range cruise missiles and the big ol' Russkie bombers that dragged them were part of the equation. But, the Tomcat took lessons from the dogfights of Vietnam into account, too. The Tomcat had the qualities of a high-speed, long-range interceptor, but also the close-in maneuverability of a dogfighter - at least for its day. The Tomcat, in the legacy of good Navy fighters could defend the fleet as well as take the fight over enemy soil and dominate the airspace, allowing the rest of the air wing's assets to be brought to bear on the enemy.

 

2) As Dave already mentioned, there's still plenty of threat to our carriers and battlegroups from enemy aircraft/missiles. It was minimal, not too long ago, but it's now in a resurgence. Think about it this way - there's probably a lot more unfriendly nations out there who could afford to buy multiple aircraft and missiles to threaten US warships than could afford a surface or submarine fleet to do the same job. I think there is definite cause for concern that the Super Hornet has taken on the role left by the Tomcat. I think the shoes are a little too big to fill.

 

Unfortunately, Dave is correct. The Navy has dropped the ball. The Air Force has been clear-headed enough to see the necessity for something like the F-22 and provide the ability to design and procure it. Naval Aviation has been pissing R&D money away for the last few decades. The A-12 comes to mind. Lots of projects that were never even half-done were scrapped and the money sunk into them, gone for good. As a result, the Super Hornet got to step into the spotlight because it offered adequate performance and lower cost.

 

The whole "off the deck" comment that sakai made doesn't only apply to missiles. The common theme downplaying the Super Hornet's relatively moderate top-end was this: "Most dogfights don't take place above Mach 1 anyway." That's all well and good, but doesn't consider the whole story. The Super Hornet's top speed is around 1.8M - and that's with very little hanging off the jet. The Tomcat could bust 2.0 with a full air-to-air load. If you were a battlegroup commander, wouldn't you rather have the ability to launch your fighters off the deck and intercept the bad guys farther away? If you were a pilot, wouldn't you rather have to ability to get out of trouble as fast as you got into it?

Edited February 3, 2009 by gbnavy61

[Rodent 0]

Don't you want to go as fast as possible when you release your weapon anyway? Or does that not matter as much with modern missiles?

 

A crying shame the Tomcat got retired. One of my all time favorite jets and as far as I understand the most capable jet for its role that they had. Only retired because it cost too much to operate.

[Viper6 3]

I also believe this is why the navy have 2nd and 3rd generation Aeigis defence screens. in any case I'm sure DoD and DoN have something in mind to defend the fleet more than likely a Supa Hornet that can carry a powerful long range Radar with a new long range missile to deal with a potential carrier killer bomber/missile package.

[Chaser617 0]

The closest I have seen is talks of re-equiping the rhinos (as a friend in the navy has infromed me some of the superbugs are called) with METEOR missiles, nothing else, and thats not a serious consideration at the moment, the only game in town for the Navy is the hornet/slammer combination and while its 'ok' its not the best in the world.

 

Too bad the F-22 both costs far too much and is far too fragile to ever be converted into a sea-borne aircraft.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Ok we need a real new shadowcat!

[JediMaster 451]

There is a new longer-range version of the Slammer in development, no idea when it will be in use though.

 

I don't know if anyone remembers, but the F-14 WAS supposed to be replaced by the NATF, which in theory was supposed to be a naval development of the winner of the ATF competition (which was the YF-22). I suppose there's a chance they might have gone with the YF-23 (like what happened with picking the losing YF-17 over 30 years ago), but I don't know if that was ever in the cards.

 

However, the 90s budget drawdown and impending retirements of the A-6 and A-7 fleets compelled them to go with the Super Hornet, which also wound up replacing the F-14s so they didn't have the money/will to go for a true successor.

[kct 5]

I don't want to say anything much about the Super Hornet (a lot has been said about it compared to the Tomcat, but what happened, already happened, and we can't change anything but to accept the fact and live on), but IMHO it would do better as an export fighter than something the Navy would actually count on as their front-line aircraft.

Edited February 3, 2009 by kct

[+Dave 2,318]

As promised

 

Here was the S-3's home from their final sea deployment. Hrntfixr drove me right onto the flight line to get these.

[gbnavy61 1]

I got a ride in one of those, once. Fun times. North Island to San Clemente and back.

[Misty FAC 3]

H-60s would not seem to me to fill the 3s shoes for ASW.

 

Then again I know little of the total package sub hunting capacity of H-60s

 

However in terms of ordnance, speed and loiter - it would seem the Seahawks would come up a bit short.

 

Best ASW weapon and screen is a sub.

[+Jarhead1 27]

I got a ride in one of those, once. Fun times. North Island to San Clemente and back.

 

Town of San Clemente or San Clemente Island, the Gunnery Range?

[gbnavy61 1]

The island.

Edited February 5, 2009 by gbnavy61

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

However, the 90s budget drawdown and impending retirements of the A-6 and A-7 fleets compelled them to go with the Super Hornet, which also wound up replacing the F-14s so they didn't have the money/will to go for a true successor.

 

...and having that monetary black hole that was the A-12 program, which began to threaten some funding to the Carrier program at one point, didn't help. People complain about the F-111B being a bust, the A-12 was the mother of all busts!

[ironroad 218]

Wait, if they're retiring the Viking, what's taking its place as a ASW/Sea Control Platform?

 

That mission got passed off to the helos and the P-3 in the early 90s, the Viking had been relegated to refueling, surface warfare, limited EW, ELINT, and limited strike. The plane was cracking up and some real stress and airframe problems. It was not a matter of wanting to retire the S-3 but having to. Viking "Sundown" was an emergency program initiated around the time before their last deployment.

 

For a straight wing hoover, that plane could maneuver, I remember seeing one come out of Andrews AFB on a hard break, then on another occasion at NOB Norfolk. Bricks were shat....

Edited February 5, 2009 by ironroad

[Vampyre 24]

That mission got passed off to the helos and the P-3 in the early 90s, the Viking had been relegated to refueling, surface warfare, limited EW, ELINT, and limited strike. The plane was cracking up and some real stress and airframe problems. It was not a matter of wanting to retire the S-3 but having to. Viking "Sundown" was an emergency program initiated around the time before their last deployment.

 

For a straight wing hoover, that plane could maneuver, I remember seeing one come out of Andrews AFB on a hard break, then on another occasion at NOB Norfolk. Bricks were shat....

 

The Sundown program was initiated back in 2002, at least that was the first I had heard of it. It being an emergency program is less than true. The actual final retirement from squadron service was actually pushed back on at least two occasions that I can remember. The S-3 was still structurally sound with only minor issues popping up every now and then unless something happened in the past two and a half years. The F/A-18 has far more issues than the S-3 ever did.

The S-3 was far more manuverable than many of the fighters that came out to play. In Japan, The skipper of VS-21 related a story about how he ended up in the wrong airspace at the wrong time during an exercise. A couple of F-15's came over to check him out they couldnt hang with him in a turn. He ended up losing them in the clouds.

She was a great jet to work on and I'll miss seeing her on deck.

I worked on the War Hoover for 10 years. VS-41, VS-21 and VS-24.

 

Vamp

[Southernap 1]

What is really interesting is that a portion of the S-3 is still flying folks. Fairchild-Republic used off the shelf parts in designing thier close support aircraft and one of those parts was the GE TF34 that was then being used on the newly introduced Lockheed S-3. They found it was an easy to maintain engine that gave good preformance at the altitude bands they wanted it to operate at.

[Vampyre 24]

IIRC four are supposed to be at Point Mugu for range duties. Those will be the last four operational Vikings in the Navy. I've seen one in NASA livelry too but I'm not sure how many they have or if they are still flying them.