Forum: General

Well the Hornet has versatility, but the moded B's, and Super Tomcats D's, are just as capable bombing, and better at fighting. Speed rules. I cant see a Supertud, fire 6 Pheonix missles. Beer

Better yet breaking mach 2, or look so sexy doing it. Cool

F-16.net Sponsor

callsignthumper wrote:

Well the Hornet has versatility, but the moded B's, and Super Tomcats D's, are just as capable bombing, and better at fighting. Speed rules. I cant see a Supertud, fire 6 Pheonix missles. Beer

Better yet breaking mach 2, or look so sexy doing it. Cool

Yeah I agree the B and D models are pretty spectacular but maintenance is a b!@#$ for both of them. The phoenix missile is probably the most over rated missile ever, it was used to shoot down slow soviet bombers. Mach 2 is nice but there's really no need for that for the super hornets roles. If you want a jack of all trades master of none aircraft, you're bound to lose some capabilities. Some people may have issues with the fact that the Super Hornet isn't much of an interceptor as the Tomcat but the SH has a superior radar which can detect enemies in BVR and shoot them down. If they miss then they can engage into a WVR and if all else fails the carrier will launch its weapons. So there really is no concern for the Carrier group and who in their right mind would ever go against the U.S. Navy, that's suicide already. Thumper, don't you have an account at airliners.net, I think I've read one of your posts on this exact issue many years ago.

I dont argue the point, that your right, there is no need for the Tomcat, and the Superturd, saves ALOT of money, because it also takes over the jobs, of the SK3 Viking, Prowler, and Tomcat, And Hornet, when the F-35 becomes fully functional, just saying by design, its a less than stellar Fighter. Especialy against some of the gen 4.5 fighters, which it wont prob engage lol.

The Tomcat never carried six 64's in combat... and the Pheonix never had a confirmed kill in US service.

I'd probably take a 120D any day... then again, they cost more.

Well what other 4.5 generation fighter can be a tanker, fighter, bomber, jammer, and land on an aircraft carrier and take off from one and has some stealth characteristics? It's obvious that the Navy is downsizing, if you have one aircraft that can do all of that stuff, means you need less spare parts and maintenance guys will only need to know how to fix one plane. It's just that in my eyes I see no fault in the Super Hornet, as long as they can bring back the pilots back home to their families after a lot of fighting it's a good plane.

The only fault is lack of power, they skimped. The Super Hornet, should have more powerfull engines, i know nothing of new enines, and not saying it had better options, but i hope they have future plans to make it accelerate better. Its a great multirole plane, but thats it, the jack of all trades, wont win in a dog-fight with a block 52, using equal pilots, on equal fronts. Oh yeah every Tomcat pilot i talked to, who was transitioning, didnt hate it, but wish they had the super cat.

Thrust vectoring, should have been incorporated, 20 mill a plane is worth it, especialy, if it is taking on all thoughs roles, and is the premiere fighter for the navy.

Quote:

PanAm
F-14 pilots hate it due to the planes lack of speed and I know that Tomcat pilots have an agenda to hate Hornets, that's a fact. Too bad their plane got scrapped by the government over the Super Hornet which in my opinion does a better job in today's warfare.

Not sure I agree, the Hornet's a better bomb truck but, the old Tomcats had a longer range and a heavier payload, but what ya gonna do the past is the past...

Quote:

Banken
Phoenix never had a confirmed kill in US service.

Have to agree with Banken (and PanAm) in that the Phoenix is (was) over rated. The Navy had a program to replace it (see http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html) but that went the way of the Dodo when the Tomcat was canceled as the F-18 can't "see" far enough to make use of a Phoenix replacement (although I will admit the F-18's avionics look pretty formidable).

callsignthumper wrote:

Well the Hornet has versatility, but the moded B's, and Super Tomcats D's, are just as capable bombing, and better at fighting. Speed rules. I cant see a Supertud, fire 6 Pheonix missles. Beer

Better yet breaking mach 2, or look so sexy doing it. Cool

The AIM-54 in service had a record worse than the AIM-7 sparrow.

Setting aside the intent of the Phoenix missile, which was to destroy bomber formations before they could attack Navy assets,the reason the AIM-54 was easy to defeat was due to the AWG-9 radar.

According to an Eagle driver who wrote about the Tomcat's BVR capabilities vis a vis the Eagle, the problem with the AWG-9 is it maintained 'simultaneous' lock with multiple targets by the spotlight method, meaning it would look in a patch of airspace for a target, search for the next target, then flip back to the original target. If the original target wasnt where the AWG-9 computer thought it would be-and this could be achived by turning 30 degress off of the original heading-the radar lost lock and the AIM-54 missile went stupid.

Put another way, the only way an AIM-54 kill was likely was if the target didn't strenuously attempt to break the lock. Good luck with that battle plan.

The Navy had two bad options to choose from:either spend a fortune to keep a maintenance nightmare like the F-14 flying, and with an obsolete missile system at that, or spend the cash for a stopgap airframe until a 'proper' replacement aircraft could be sourced. The Navy made the right call in choosing the Hornet over the F-14.

silversmok3 wrote:

callsignthumper wrote:

Well the Hornet has versatility, but the moded B's, and Super Tomcats D's, are just as capable bombing, and better at fighting. Speed rules. I cant see a Supertud, fire 6 Pheonix missles. Beer

Better yet breaking mach 2, or look so sexy doing it. Cool

The AIM-54 in service had a record worse than the AIM-7 sparrow.

Setting aside the intent of the Phoenix missile, which was to destroy bomber formations before they could attack Navy assets,the reason the AIM-54 was easy to defeat was due to the AWG-9 radar.

According to an Eagle driver who wrote about the Tomcat's BVR capabilities vis a vis the Eagle, the problem with the AWG-9 is it maintained 'simultaneous' lock with multiple targets by the spotlight method, meaning it would look in a patch of airspace for a target, search for the next target, then flip back to the original target. If the original target wasnt where the AWG-9 computer thought it would be-and this could be achived by turning 30 degress off of the original heading-the radar lost lock and the AIM-54 missile went stupid.

Put another way, the only way an AIM-54 kill was likely was if the target didn't strenuously attempt to break the lock. Good luck with that battle plan.

The Navy had two bad options to choose from:either spend a fortune to keep a maintenance nightmare like the F-14 flying, and with an obsolete missile system at that, or spend the cash for a stopgap airframe until a 'proper' replacement aircraft could be sourced. The Navy made the right call in choosing the Hornet over the F-14.

Well put my friend, couldn't have said it better myself. Although the SH IS a "stop gap" between the Tomcat and Lightning II, I have a feeling the SH might end up being something more than just a stop gap considering budget is the key thing these days, if the F-35 gets delayed for w/e reason, the SH just might get glorified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIRya-3a ... ture=email , that's what matters most in my opinion

I think the F/A designation has faded over time. The A-7 was retired shortly after Desert Storm, and the A-6 in 1997. The coprporate memory of the attack community has faded over time. Doesn't everybody want to call themselves a fighter pilot?

The airwing looks kind of boring with all those pointy noses, but it is cost effective. None of these aircraft are good at protecting ground troops against IEDs.

lincoln78 wrote:

I think the F/A designation has faded over time. The A-7 was retired shortly after Desert Storm, and the A-6 in 1997. The coprporate memory of the attack community has faded over time. Doesn't everybody want to call themselves a fighter pilot?

The airwing looks kind of boring with all those pointy noses, but it is cost effective. None of these aircraft are good at protecting ground troops against IEDs.

It would have more to do with the lack of development $$ for mission specific airframes.

The days of having a specific aircraft for close support, air superiority,and tactical bombing are long history.The F-15 Eagle today fulfills the missions the the F-111 and the F-4 used to do, as one airframe.

The same with the F-16, which carries the load the F-4 WW,F-105, and F-100.

And this comes back to the Super Hornet , which pulls the same duties in one airplane that the F-14, F-18 early variants, A-4 , and the A-6 Intruder used to do in the past. Thats one airplane, doing the work that used to be comitted to 3 separate aircraft made by 3 separate contractors, with their own attending support and parts costs.

Today, every aircraft is multirole.No one can afford the alternative anymore!

Dont forget in the USAF we had the "FB-111". When several were
sold to Australia, they became F-111G's...

Quote:

The airwing looks kind of boring with all those pointy noses, but it is cost effective. None of these aircraft are good at protecting ground troops against IEDs.

CAS, when available, protects troops on the roads. Hornets and Vipers with the latest targeting pods are excellent at helping ground pounders avoid ambushes, find IEDs and even nab guys who were placing IEDs. There just aren't enough assets to cover all the convoys and patrols.

Forum: General

F-16 multirole designation vs. F/A-18