Forum: Air Power

Errr, the F-14D was ready for AMRAAM. The road was paved, politics were a roadblock to curtail any attempt at delaying the introduction of more pork into the Navy. The Cheney administration (you can hardly pin any of it on Bush) was so hard focused on getting those contracts through Congress that they were exhibiting paranoia anytime a solution contrary to Super Hornet was floated. The government would have save a lot of money by refurbishing Tomcats to the D model and continuing to refine what they had already owned. Those were interesting times to say the least. We've got the dems doing the same thing to America right now with their pork being force-fed onto the military. Its pretty difficult to keep spending under control when neither party is demonstrating fiscal responsibility.

F-16.net Sponsor

Well whether it would have been much cheaper is questionable. The F-14 was extremly expensive to operate and new built F-14s would have been expense enough as well. Just living on with the ageing Tomcat fleet wouldn't have been a viable solution in the mid to long term. As much as I'm a fan of the Tomcat it's simply not that well suited for current times.

They were paid for and the reason they were becoming costly was neglect. When the time & money was spent to get them ready for use they answered the call and performed their missions. The Navy is pretty much treating every program like that right now, from the ship hulls to the ship radars themselves. They are still living the dream of a 600 ship fleet on a 150 ship budget.

Quote:

The Tomcat was reportedly used in he Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's to a great effect and reportedly killed a lot of fighters with its Phoenix missiles, as well as Sparrows and Sidewinders.

It was also reportedly used to little effect, suffering from horrible readiness rates from lack of spare parts from the embargo. There's very little information on how the Iranians used their F-14s. The only thing I've heard that sounds credible was that it was used as a mini-AWACS to direct other fighters.

duplex wrote:

This probably comes from experience in that US Navy SH's have fought mostly low intensity wars with negligible fighter opposition. However, against a first-world air force operating RAFALE,TYPHOON and SU-35 , the SH will not gain air superiority that easy .Nobody underestimates the US Navy but remember this, the top gun pilots have never fought against equally skilled opponents.

Seriously?!? This is probably the weakest of the arguments that SH haters come up with. Please describe to me a legit scenario where the USN engages a NATO ally in combat or where a Carrier Air Wing finds itself up against the dozen or so SU-35s that the Russians have managed to build.

Proponents of this kind of argument like to speculate about this version of the F-14 that might have one day existed or that future tranche of Eurofighter that will have AESA and an ice cream dispenser. French fanboys will credit the Rafale with capabilities that are nothing short of ludicrious. Today, in the real world where Superhornets are at sea, they stand no real chance of coming up against a foe that has any sort of advantage over them. ...and all the raving of Air Power Australia and die hard fans of Maverick and Goose won't change a thing.

HKDan wrote:

duplex wrote:

This probably comes from experience in that US Navy SH's have fought mostly low intensity wars with negligible fighter opposition. However, against a first-world air force operating RAFALE,TYPHOON and SU-35 , the SH will not gain air superiority that easy .Nobody underestimates the US Navy but remember this, the top gun pilots have never fought against equally skilled opponents.

Seriously?!? This is probably the weakest of the arguments that SH haters come up with. Please describe to me a legit scenario where the USN engages a NATO ally in combat or where a Carrier Air Wing finds itself up against the dozen or so SU-35s that the Russians have managed to build.

Proponents of this kind of argument like to speculate about this version of the F-14 that might have one day existed or that future tranche of Eurofighter that will have AESA and an ice cream dispenser. French fanboys will credit the Rafale with capabilities that are nothing short of ludicrious. Today, in the real world where Superhornets are at sea, they stand no real chance of coming up against a foe that has any sort of advantage over them. ...and all the raving of Air Power Australia and die hard fans of Maverick and Goose won't change a thing.

Agreed. I'd also like to add the fact that US Navy Super Hornet pilots are some of the best trained fighter pilots in the world.

@Discofishing,
there was a pretty good article from Tom Cooper and a co author about the Iranian F-14s. The Iranian industry managed to bring more aircraft into service throughout the war and there are reports how the aircraft performed against Iraqi aircraft, including interviews/reports with/from former Iranian F-14 pilots.
The quoted kills range between 44 to 200, though I think the latter is clearly exagerrated, but there were a number of confirmed kills, also described in more detail. It appears to be an ill perceiption that IRIAF Tomcats were barely operational during that war like the widely spread believe that those aircraft weren't operational towards the end of the 90s.

Same with the F-14. The closest it got to high intensity was Desert Storm. The F-14 wasn't the greatest dogfighting aircraft in the world and would probably have more of a problem against modern fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, Flankers and what not. The Super Hornet has a better radar, better AA missiles, better maneuverability and is WAY safer to fly. On the other hand, I still think the USN needs a dedicated fleet defense fighter. The Carrier Group is too valuable not to have one. If we ever lost a carrier, the Navy would feel it big time. Upgrading F-14s beyond a D variant and using them along side F-18E/Fs would've been my choice.

Here's a good F-14 page: http://www.anft.net/f-14/index.htm[/quote]

Actually , the greatest threat to Carrier Groups today and in the future will be the nuclear submarines, like the Russian Oscar Class. Enemy fighters come second.

I disagree HKDan , During the US-FRENCH NAVY Interoperability exercises ,US top gun pilots were extremely impressed with the Rafales Flight Control System, which gives better carrier landing performance than any other aircraft. The USAF was also extremely impressed with the accuracy of the Rafales A2G strikes in Afghanistan and Nellis Air Force Base. Fact and no fantasy of French fanboys . All the 4 Gen fighters Typhoon, Rafale and certainly the Sukhoi SU-35 series can out-turn,out-accelerate,out-manouver the SH in all flight regimes easily.these fighters have the ability to both supercruise and use their afterburners for a considerable length of time
The radar signature of both the Typhoon and Rafale are lower than any 3rd generation fighter. They would chew up several times its number of Super Hornets in dog fights even when heavily outnumbered.
The fact remains that the US NAVY today lacks a true fighter for air superiority.Neither the SH nor the future F-35 can do the job.
What the Carrier Groups need is a Raptor, F-22 at SEA !!!

The only obstacle to the F-14 seeing action in the Gulf Wars was the guy sitting over the command of the whole campaign in each case. They purposely excluded the F-14 from any role that would give it much success. Actually you could almost say that about the Navy in general, it wasn't an exclusive glass ceiling to the F-14. That's the future of warfare for the USN today, politics.

Quote:

there was a pretty good article from Tom Cooper and a co author about the Iranian F-14s. The Iranian industry managed to bring more aircraft into service throughout the war and there are reports how the aircraft performed against Iraqi aircraft, including interviews/reports with/from former Iranian F-14 pilots.
The quoted kills range between 44 to 200, though I think the latter is clearly exagerrated, but there were a number of confirmed kills, also described in more detail. It appears to be an ill perceiption that IRIAF Tomcats were barely operational during that war like the widely spread believe that those aircraft weren't operational towards the end of the 90s.

Those sound like one-sided interviews. Think about where those pilots live, its Iran. A place where you speak on unfavorable terms about the military/government, no matter how true it is, you disappear or go to jail. Did that guy interview anyone from the Iraqi Air Force? That's something he might want to look into, especially now that Iraq is a lot more accessible. I believe the Iranians were capable of getting their F-14s air worthy during that era, but they weren't able to maintain the very avionics and weapons systems that gave the Tomcat its combat capabilities. Things might be a little different today.

Quote:

The only obstacle to the F-14 seeing action in the Gulf Wars was the guy sitting over the command of the whole campaign in each case. They purposely excluded the F-14 from any role that would give it much success. Actually you could almost say that about the Navy in general, it wasn't an exclusive glass ceiling to the F-14. That's the future of warfare for the USN today, politics.

I believe it was the fact that the F-14 didn't have comprehensive IFF capabilites, where as the F-15s did. Notice that the F-18s that shot down two Mig-21s did so with AIM-9s which points to the pilots having to ID the target with the mark 1 eyeball. I'm sure the Hornets had Sparrows, but the Navy aircraft just didn't have the equipment to make sure they weren't launching (BVR) at friendlies. You might want to research a little more. Any operation or war is deeply rooted in politics. That's the future of warfare for all the military branches, not just the Navy.

Some of the above can be researched eassily from open sources. The F-18's that shot down the MiG-21's in ODS were only notifies by AWACS at the last minute and it was a close range engagement suitable for Sidewinder. The statement that the F-14 was held out of ODS for political resons is pure bunk. The Navy planes lacked IFF as stated above and the Navy strikers had less PGM capability.

Oh however did the USN manage to fight a war before 1990?

Super Bug better than Rafale? I have a hard time believing that, especially since Rafale is getting AESA. French pilots were running ACM with them a couple months ago with zero loss. Even beat the pants off RAF Typhoons over Corsica and Al Dhafra. 1:0:5 against the F-22. The performance at Red Flag was notable, 6:1 against aggressor F-16s and no SAM losses. Rafale and Super Bug are in two different leagues when it comes to A2A.

Quote:

Super Bug better than Rafale? I have a hard time believing that, especially since Rafale is getting AESA. French pilots were running ACM with them a couple months ago with zero loss. Even beat the pants off RAF Typhoons over Corsica and Al Dhafra. 1:0:5 against the F-22. The performance at Red Flag was notable, 6:1 against aggressor F-16s and no SAM losses. Rafale and Super Bug are in two different leagues when it comes to A2A.

Oh really. Any sources to back those claims up?

Forum: Air Power

Aircraft Roles in the 21st Century USN?