Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Jun 2017, 15:33

35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.
Choose Crews
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post20 Jun 2017, 16:19

XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.


Ouch!!! I guess the Superbug did pretty well in the real world then :mrgreen:
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post20 Jun 2017, 19:10

steve2267 wrote:Saw that in the news. Any word on whether it was a Sidewinder, slammer, or guns? If it was "immediate", I'm guessing it was an AIM-120. Slightly curious it wasn't a Raptor, but then again, I have no idea how the planes are deployed, and am (also) guessing the Super Hornet was closest aircraft at the time (right place at the right time). Good on da pilot...

Saw these on twitter during the day: 6 miles out, 1st miss and 2nd shot the rear off. Chute seen. Pilot in SDF custody. None fully confirmed though, just journo tweets. So I'd say Sidewinder x2.

There was also a F-15 kill today on a similar Iranian drone than a little while ago.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23554
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Jun 2017, 22:26

MEET THE NEW BOSS - NOT THE SAME AS THE OLD BOSS....
Dunford Touts F-35 as ‘Not Just a Better F-18 or Bomb Truck’
20 Jun 2017 Richard Sisk

"Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said Monday that the F-35 is “not just a better F-18” but a “transformational” aircraft that will change the way the U.S. conducts war. “The short answer is it’s a critical program,” Dunford said of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in response to questions at a National Press Club lunch.

“I believe it is not just a better F-18 [Super Hornet] or a better bomb truck,” he said, but rather a transformational platform “both in its ability to deliver its ordnance as well as its ability to serve literally as a server in the sky.” “It is going to transform the way we fight,” Dunford said, despite well-documented continuing cost overruns and engineering problems that have slowed its deployment....

...“The impact of air superiority provided by our F-35s is integral to supporting our warfighters and NATO allies,” Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said in a statement...."

Source: https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/20/dunf ... omb-truck/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7707
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Jun 2017, 23:38

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23554
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Jun 2017, 01:13

:doh: "...sky-on-skin friction..."? wattle they think of next? How much can a koala bear? So much like the F-35 thingamabob the first Shornet IRST must have been ...? Welcome to IRST upgrade city y'all - join the F-35 innit. :applause:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Jun 2017, 18:51

XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.


Couldn't agree more. Give that man a cigar...

At the rate we're going, expect the Hawkeye Hornet coming to a carrier near you.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1353
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post21 Jun 2017, 19:15

What is the source of that wall of text anyway (I'm guess it's a PDF based on the spacing)? I'd love to be able to cite it as an example.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23554
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Jun 2017, 20:05

I cannot believe this wall of text is cited with just one/two liner replies - PUHLEEZ - just your two liner replies will be OK.

Go HERE for the wall of text cited without formatting: http://www.anft.net/f-14/guestbook-04.htm UGLY
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23554
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 08:33

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7707
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 09:44

Looks like AIM-9X on the Super Hornets...
Attachments
Capture.PNG
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2236
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 15:33

popcorn wrote:Looks like AIM-9X on the Super Hornets...


Yes, but can't they park a pair of AMRAAMs on the fuselage stations? From that video capture angle, all the stuff hanging from the wings would seem to block view of AMRAAMs, no?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1353
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 18:07

See the above article; they fired an AIM-9 of some kind from half a mile away, likely a 9X based on footage of Rhinos in Syria like Popcorn showed, but the Su-22 deployed flares and the AIM-9 missed (bad angle?). They then followed that with an AIM-120 (presumably a C) which successfully took down the Sukhoi.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 23:42

Dragon029 wrote:What is the source of that wall of text anyway (I'm guess it's a PDF based on the spacing)? I'd love to be able to cite it as an example.


Was originally looking for this gem:

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1008443

Stout moved on to criticize the F-35, and even posted here explaining his thoughts.

There is also a wonderful thread here i need to find where Eric Palmer bashes the SH left right and center and of course Airpower Australia had their thoughts on it too.

Now you could say "yeah it's just one though and a Syrian su-22 at that" well, the way these guys made it sound the thing would be smoked by a Shturmovick

Why do I care? Because the arguments have not changed at all, only the name: F-35. For as much as people whine about LM, these guys are the real B**l$hit peddlers. And when they are proven wrong they don't go away, they double down on the next program
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2752
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 02:30

Good find. I saw the long article above and assumed it was by either Jay Stout (USMC Ret) or Paul Gilchrist (USN Ret). Istr both being adamantly against SH at the time.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests