Forum: F-22A Raptor

Greeeeaaaat... how is the F/A-18E/F a bad plane now?

F-16.net Sponsor

skrip00 wrote:

Greeeeaaaat... how is the F/A-18E/F a bad plane now?

Welcome to F-16.net, where a bunch of Air Force people with little to no experiance with Naval Aviation come together to tell the Navy how to do its job. Then again... I think they teach that at OTS dont they?

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 - 09:20 PM Posts: 134

Corsair1963 wrote:

The F-14D carries approx. 16,200lbs of fuel internally and the F-35C 19,600lbs.

To be fair, the F-14 always carries two 280 gallon fuel tanks under its nacelles (even when in a dogfight or supersonic), giving it about the same fuel load as the F-35C. The aerodynamics are such that they are essentially conformal fuel tanks, and the F-14 retains virtually its full capabilities with them.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Further, the venerable Tomcat has to carry all od its stores externally while the Lightning does not!

That's true, although the drag from the air-to-ground stores in the "tunnel" between the nacelles is fairly low. It's almost like a huge weapon bay down there. Smile

Corsair1963 wrote:

Really, 4th generation fighters just can't compete with 5th generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35...

Then again, upgraded third-generation fighters can be quite effective, as well. What mainly distinguishes fifth-generation fighters is a high degree of stealth, although the F-22 also provides an unprecedented combination of performance qualities in a fighter.

dwightlooi wrote:

Many assume that the F-35 is not slick to the wind (not aerodynamic) when this is apparently not true. If anything, it is probably just as slick if not more so than the F-16 or F-18 type airframe despite having a tremendous internal fuel load and two huge weapon bays. When clean it is practically as fast as the F-16/18.

Basically, in terms of drag, the F-35, like the F-22, pays for most of its standard capabilities up front. In a combat configuration with an internal payload that approximates the realistic internal and external payloads of legacy fighters, the F-35 will be clean, and will therefore have a significant advantage in drag, at least until the older fighters drop their stores (although tanks are not usually dropped).

As for how a clean, unloaded F-35 would compare to a clean, unloaded F-16 (not realistic in combat except perhaps for dropping stores and running away), it's hard to tell, as there are many variables involved. It will certainly be interesting to see how this turns out, although I wouldn't get my hopes up that the F-35 will be able to out-accelerate the chase aircraft. If it can, that would be most intriguing.

dwightlooi wrote:

Even with the typically conservative pre-service entry performance estimates it is a >M1.6 ~M1.8 aircraft. That is exactly what an F-18 was when it is clean and light. The difference is that the F-18 is not going on any mission with just cannon ammo and no tanks. The F-35 will be able to fly with 4~6 AAMs, 2 AAMs + 2 2000 pounders, 2 AAMs + 8 SDBs and a wide varietty of other store combinations while being completely devoid of external stores. Therefore in mission configurations the F-35 will present a performance improvement over the previous generation.

Yep, and what people also often seem to forget is that the F-35's external stores stations, when utilized, represent payload/range capability beyond that of the previous fighter generation.

dwightlooi wrote:

Does the shaping in the interest of stealth prevent it from having slightly better aerodynamics? Probably.

Undoubtedly this must be the case, but the penalty could not be all that great, since the F-22 seems to be both the stealthiest combat aircraft currently flying as well as the most aerodynamically refined. With some exceptions, stealth shaping actually seems to be largely compatible with good aerodynamics if you know what you're doing. The F-117 is really the only stealth aircraft with poor aerodynamics, due to the lack of computing power and experience at the time, but it is now the exception, not the rule.

skrip00 wrote:

Greeeeaaaat... how is the F/A-18E/F a bad plane now?

It's not a bad plane at all, but some of us believe that the F-35C will be even better. It is kind of strange to defend it one minute and put it down the next, though. Wink

The two arent in competition you know. The F/A-18E/F fills the role missile platform, refueler, EAW, ASuW, and bomb truck. F-35 = stealthy strike platform.

Lawman wrote:

skrip00 wrote:

Greeeeaaaat... how is the F/A-18E/F a bad plane now?

Welcome to F-16.net, where a bunch of Air Force people with little to no experiance with Naval Aviation come together to tell the Navy how to do its job. Then again... I think they teach that at OTS dont they?

Yeah, heh. Well the Navy guys can tell the USAF they got the F/A-18E/F on budget, on time, and underweight.

As always Robert Cook it is a pleasure to read your replies. By your reasoned and well thought out responses it is obvious that you do more than just dabble in this stuff.

I would like to comment on a few of the remarks made.

I think you would agree that it was a mistake to kill the Tomcat just now. It is indeed a fact that without it the Navy would not have been able to support the troops nearly as effectively as they did in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Bosnia. The F-18E (some call it Rhino) is a fine AC but it just does not have the legs or raw performance that the big cat had.

You have convinced me that if the F-35C is everything that we all hope it to be it will come close or exceed the Tomcat in range it still is not the AC in terms of performance. Like Firefox pointed out, you can bet that there is a whole lot of research going on in Europe and Asia to defeat or mitigate the effects of stealth. As you pointed out Robert that is what separates the F-35 from the F-22. The Raptor has stealth true, but it can always fall back on jaw dropping performance if stealth is ever compromised. Can we say the same for the F-35?

did we need stealth in Afghanistan? No we needed a range and payload. This is what the Navy has given up by retiring the Tomcat. I think in the coming years there is a greater likelihood of needing planes that can strike from a distance than there will be for stealth. Will that situation arise before the F-35 joins the fleet in numbers?

I think we all would be sleeping better if back in 1991 Dick Cheney used a little foresight and realized that the Tomcat's capabilities had only just begun to be fully explored. What would have happened if they developed the Tomcat to the extent they developed the Hornet? I do not think that we would be having this conversation today.

At the very least they should have found a way to keep four squadrons of Tomcats active until we get the F-35. Because right now, until then the Navy gets the F-35 they will not be doing any power projection deep inshore.

Two other things. I agree it is sometimes strange to bash an AC then in another thread support it (after its all said and done I think the super bug is a fine ac) but that is because we are comparing different AC to different missions.

Second I thought it was the F-111F that finally had the right engines. The F-111B became the FB-111.

Thumper3181 wrote:

I think you would agree that it was a mistake to kill the Tomcat just now. It is indeed a fact that without it the Navy would not have been able to support the troops nearly as effectively as they did in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Bosnia. The F-18E (some call it Rhino) is a fine AC but it just does not have the legs or raw performance that the big cat had.

did we need stealth in Afghanistan? No we needed a range and payload. This is what the Navy has given up by retiring the Tomcat. I think in the coming years there is a greater likelihood of needing planes that can strike from a distance than there will be for stealth. Will that situation arise before the F-35 joins the fleet in numbers?

I think we all would be sleeping better if back in 1991 Dick Cheney used a little foresight and realized that the Tomcat's capabilities had only just begun to be fully explored. What would have happened if they developed the Tomcat to the extent they developed the Hornet? I do not think that we would be having this conversation today.

At the very least they should have found a way to keep four squadrons of Tomcats active until we get the F-35. Because right now, until then the Navy gets the F-35 they will not be doing any power projection deep inshore.

You do realize this has been done to death on every aviation forum on the internet right? You do realize that several one anchor/two anchor guys have come on this board and said just how wrong all the anti-Rhino hype is right?

Look basics of this are simple:

1. Yes when Bosnia happened and the Hornet was only using the Nitehawk pod the Tomcat had a better PGM capability... those times have passed. Litening II and ATFLIR make the Rhino the best PGM platform in the fleet miles ahead of what the Tomcat had.

2. When Afganistan was initially happening there wernt that many Rhinos in the fleet. Everybody likes to point and say "Hey there wernt any E/F's doing strikes on Afganistan but Tomcats were" You know why, cause it was more important to use what few Rhinos were available in the 5 wet configuration to get those Tomcats and *Gasp* Smaller shorter ranged Legacy Hornets to their targets in Afganistan. Believe me the Navy can and will send the ball deep down field if need be. And the Rhino will be much more survivable in going down field then the Tomcat would be. Its technology, like it or not your dealing with a much newer aircraft with much newer toys and stuff to use in its bag o' tricks.

3. Keep 4 Squadrons of Tomcats around? Why? The manpower to keep those 4 Squadrons in the air would be better spent keeping 60's up and running in Iraq to do CASEVAC and other missions. And the money to develop the Tomcat further.... Grumman had their chance to big against Mac Air, they tried and they lost. All you can get out of such an argument/conversation is conjecture on all the "we coulds" and "Maybe if's."

Im not saying the Navy wouldnt absolutely love the idea of getting an aircraft on the deck with Raptor like performance in the Air To Air arena. As for just getting Stealth on the Carrier.... Look at the total inventory of Stealth Aircraft over the last 15 years. How many times has it been absolutely critical that an aircraft be LO to accomplish the mission. How many aircraft do you need in a nations inventory to actually maintain that force. Look it would be great if all our planes were stealth, but hey wish in one hand.....

Alright, I gotta weigh in now that most people have calmed down.

The Tomcat had some serious problems though. While it does have longer legs than the Bug, it has other problems that mean it might not be able to do the mission. The maintenance on the Tomcat was horrible, horrendous, and downright evil. That lead to bad mission up (I think I got the term right) ratings. Basically, because of the maintenance, you wouldn't always have the resources you wanted/needed. With the Bug, and moreso with the Super Bug, your mission ready ratings would be better so you can get the resources you need when you need them. In afghanistan, the navy had full support of the air force and therefore its tankers allowing anything to have long legs just about. I guarantee if there had been an F-14E, the major priority would have been maintenance and ease of maintenance. Second would have been RCS reduction to what would be a reasonable level (less than 1m instead of something like 50m). Third would be the ability to use the AMRAAM (no it couldn't use the AMRAAM it was stuck with the Sparrow).

Speed is not as important as it once was, the Ruskies are not coming over the pole any time soon. How many times has an aircraft's top speed really been used in combat, even fleeing they usually don't get to top speed I'd imagine. Combat pilots could tell you more about bugging out and such, I'm just a student. Anyway, top speed shouldn't not be the only consideration, the Cat was not going Mach 2 over Afghanistan, it was going more like .8.

The Cat has the largest RCS of any modern fighter. The giant Sukhois are dwarfed by the RCS of the Cat, now that will attract SAM fire. Yes, it would be possible to reduce that RCS in later models, but I think the military had other things on its mind than continuing with the Cat. I support the decision based on what I've heard, but again I'm a student. I don't have access to military file and information so my opinion means little because I don't know much of anything about it.

It would be good to have a semi-stealth strike and a stealthy strike, unfortunately that's huge money you're throwing down. It won't happen unless a real war breaks out (think World War scale). Then the military budget will inflate enormously and they will be able to afford more toys.

And I swear if I hear one more person say something along the lines of, "How an airplane looks tell you how it flies." I will go engineer on your a$$. It's not true in the slightest beyond the fact that it will fly if it has wings. You can draw logical conclusion because of basics, yes it has a tail, wings, horz tail, intakes etc. Beyond that, with modern control systems look tell you squat.

FireFox137 wrote:

sferrin wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

That's basically the Northrop entry into the JSF competition.... It'll never be built.

Apart from the butterfly tail it's nothing like the Northrop entry. On top of that it's F-A-K-E.

Looks about 80% like NG's JSF. Bonanza styled v-tails.... side mounted air intakes. But yeah, it's a fake (as fake as the Clint Eastwood's 1982 movie - Firefox). Did you even notice that it has NG's styled ATF wings?

Yeah, but Northrop's JSF entry didn't have an ATF style wing. Wink

What was Northrop's JSF entry? I though it was only Boeing and LockMart?

I believe a lot of companies were asked to submit proposals. The ones the AF liked best were asked to build them a prototype. I believe that is the way most of the competitions worked and I know the ATF worked like that.

skrip00 wrote:

What was Northrop's JSF entry? I though it was only Boeing and LockMart?

Here's the Northrop/McD/BAE design.

Quote:

Lawman
You do realize this has been done to death on every aviation forum on the internet right? You do realize that several one anchor/two anchor guys have come on this board and said just how wrong all the anti-Rhino hype is right?

Yes I do realize it has been done extensively. Maybe just maybe because it is such a controversial issue and a lot of the pro F-14 points have a lot of merit. What everyone seems to forget is that we are comparing the super bug of 2006 to the F-14D of 1991. No one is saying that the F-14 did not need an upgrade. No one is saying that much would have been addressed to fix some of the maintenance deficiencies of the F-14. What is being said is that the money spent upgrading the Hornet in 1991 would have been better spent upgrading the F-14 to the Supertomcat (I think it was called Tomcat 21).

The F-14D does some things (payload and range) that the F-18 does not do nearly as well and for that reason alone until the F-35C joins the fleet should the Tomcats had at least the worst of the maintenance problems addressed and some number of Tomcats be retained as originally planned. So what half the Tomcats where down at any given time. Six F-14Ds could still fly missions that the 12 F-18s could not do.

As for one and two star admirals coming on these boards. Well what are they supposed to say. The Rhino sucks, it does'nt have the range we need. Boy you don;t know much about the military do you. Did you ever wonder what retired admirals think about it? Try this URL out

http://www.rccaraction.com/fj/articles/ ... 4f18_1.asp

Quote:

Litening II and ATFLIR make the Rhino the best PGM platform in the fleet

I am sure those pods could have been fitted to the Tomcat.

Quote:

You know why, cause it was more important to use what few Rhinos were available in the 5 wet configuration to get those Tomcats and *Gasp* Smaller shorter ranged Legacy Hornets to their targets in Afganistan.

Nope, S-3s and KA-6Ds where used to tank for the F-14s. The super bugs refueled the bugs that patrolled southern Afghanistan. They rarely if ever made it north.

Quote:

As for just getting Stealth on the Carrier.... Look at the total inventory of Stealth Aircraft over the last 15 years. How many times has it been absolutely critical that an aircraft be LO to accomplish the mission.

Zero. It's not the stealth but the range and payload increases (which I am still not fully convinced matches up to either the Tomcat or Intruder) that the F-35C promises that makes it "attractive".

Quote:

Lord Of Bunnies
The maintenance on the Tomcat was horrible, horrendous, and downright evil. That lead to bad mission up (I think I got the term right) ratings.

No argument there. It should come as no surprise avionics and systems where basically 60s and 70s technology. It was the airframe and engines that
set it apart. Again the point is there was so much more potential left in the design.

Quote:

With the Bug, and moreso with the Super Bug, your mission ready ratings would be better so you can get the resources you need when you need them.

What good is mission ready when you have a plane that is incapable of flying the mission due to range/payload limitations.

Quote:

full support of the air force and therefore its tankers allowing anything to have long legs just about.

Rarely was there AF tanker support. Think about where they had to fly from.

I agree with you on the Tomcat upgrades. tomcat 21 was supposed to address them and more.

Speed still matters in a dogfight. Speed still matters for an intercept. Energy is life. Speed = energy.

Besides the F-14 is such a good looking plane. It is going to fly circles around that ugly F-18 and F-35! Devil

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Carrier stealth aircraft