Forum: Air Power

Will the F-35C or F/A-18E/F perform the air superiority role? How do these two aircraft stack up against each other?

F-16.net Sponsor

What lb test of line did use use with that bait? Wink

Er, what does that mean? Last time I fished was a worm on a 4 lb. line, by the way.

I was inferring that a comparison of the F-35C to the F-18E/F is a open invitation to a flame war, hence the joke about bait.

I see.

Salute!

The USN needs fleet defense, and the F-35 is not the main jet for the mission. It's the new Hornet.

The USN needs planes for the attack role, and the Intruders, Slufs and Scooters and Phantoms are gone.

So the new Hornets do the fleet defense mission with some help from the Lightning.

The Lightnings provide airpower to attack enemy forces at ports, key installations a hundred miles inland, etc.. The Marine versions support their brethren according to their doctrine.

From a USAF point of view, the carriers have some neat capabilities. One big one is they don't have to launch planes from a base that is subject to local government rules or logistics problems. OTOH, support of those big boats and the planes is a constant concern.

The current crop of USAF bombers can be anywhere in the world within 12 or 13 hours with the cosmic weapons some are crowing about on another thread (COIN). But they have to fly back another 12 or 13 hours. So the carriers can stay in the arena once they get there.

later,

Gums sends ....

So the new Hornets do the fleet defense mission with some help from the Lightning.

The new SH is no replacement for F-14D Super Tomcat

Without a superior A2A fighter The US carriers are vulnerable, because

1-The US Navy is obliged to maintain a continuous presence around the world, so with its scattered carriers it is not capable of concentrating its overwhelming numbers rapidly anywhere ..6 fleets thousands miles apart .
2-As fleet protection fighter even the new SH is massively inferior to Super Tomcat armed? with 6 heavy Phoenix. The performance the Super Hornet gives up to make it a first class ground attack makes it unsuitable to fulfill the role vacated by the Tomcat. As a result, the US Navy lacks a real A2A fighter and will not have an equivalent aircraft to carry out the A2A role even the F-35s unit may not be able to do A2A as well as the F-22 or F-14D because it primarily does a different job The result is that US naval air power could be outlclassed by enemies operating RAFALE or TYPHOON or SU-35 Type of +4 Gen aircrafts .Of course with less than 200 F-22s, and those have a short effective range without tankers and are likely to be consigned to home defense the USN will lack a real air superiority fighter Without an efficient A2A fighter,the carriers are vulnerable.

duplex wrote:

So the new Hornets do the fleet defense mission with some help from the Lightning.

The new SH is no replacement for F-14D Super Tomcat

Without a superior A2A fighter The US carriers are vulnerable, because

1-The US Navy is obliged to maintain a continuous presence around the world, so with its scattered carriers it is not capable of concentrating its overwhelming numbers rapidly anywhere ..6 fleets thousands miles apart .
2-As fleet protection fighter even the new SH is massively inferior to Super Tomcat armed? with 6 heavy Phoenix. The performance the Super Hornet gives up to make it a first class ground attack makes it unsuitable to fulfill the role vacated by the Tomcat. As a result, the US Navy lacks a real A2A fighter and will not have an equivalent aircraft to carry out the A2A role even the F-35s unit may not be able to do A2A as well as the F-22 or F-14D because it primarily does a different job The result is that US naval air power could be outlclassed by enemies operating RAFALE or TYPHOON or SU-35 Type of +4 Gen aircrafts .Of course with less than 200 F-22s, and those have a short effective range without tankers and are likely to be consigned to home defense the USN will lack a real air superiority fighter Without an efficient A2A fighter,the carriers are vulnerable.

I could write a decent multi-page essay on why the F-14 is the most overrated airplane of all time, but I'll leave that for another time.

The fact of the matter is that with much higher readiness rate of the F-18E/F combined with AMRAAMs and reduced RCS make the Super Hornet an entirely adequate F-14 replacement. What it lacks in performance it makes up for in numbers (more can fly at any one time) and technology.

I would be very interested in reading your essays.

The SH is a bomber/fighter and not a true fighter well thats a big difference The emphasis on attack aircraft is obviously more suitable to low-intensity conflicts like IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN , where air superiority is guaranteed and such aircraft come into their own. However the effectiveness of an aircraft in A2G is irrelevant if it can not survive to get to the target and get out. If such an air force lacks true air superiority its attack assets will be severely hampered in a high-intensity conflict . Im my opinion which is shared by many ,without air superiority a NAVY can not operate effectively and in the next three decades the USN will lack true fighters as neither the F-35 or the SH are true fighters.

There's a number of issues with the F-14, especially those powered by the TF30. As mentioned above the reliabilty and the cost to maintain them was one. Another was the issue with the claimed track 24 engage 6 targets capability. This was only if the targets were virtually flying in formation. In terms of going against enemy fighters there were obvious issues there as well, especially the suitability of Phoenix vs a maneuvering target. The role of the F-14 was to shoot the archers while Aegis handled the arrows and in that role it was solid as it didn't have to be perfect or even good all it had to do was attrit the enemy. This is why the F-14, even the D model is gone. No one the USN faces or will face in the future is going to field large numbers of high performance antiship missile carrying aircraft. One can posit the Chinese using some type of missile carried by T-10 derivatives but these can be handled by strikes on their bases. An F-14 capability would be nice to have but not necessary and not worth the cost.

[quote="duplex"]
1-The US Navy is obliged to maintain a continuous presence around the world, so with its scattered carriers it is not capable of concentrating its overwhelming numbers rapidly anywhere ..6 fleets thousands miles apart .
quote]

I think this is an inaccurate statement. At any given time roughly 3 Carrier Strike Groups are underway around the world. In the event of a crisis they can respond within a week to almost any point in the world. Under the Fleet Response Plan, these three CSGs can be joined by another two Carriers within a month and one more within 90 days. So the USN shows up to the party with 3 Carrier Strike Groups in a week, five in a month, and six in 90 days. Today, in a week that would consist of up to 72 Superhornets and another 72 F/A-18A+/C legacy Hornets. E/A-18G Growlers are showing up in the fleet right now, but most Carrier Air Wing are still using E/A-6B Prowlers. For AEW they will be supported by E-2C Hawkeyes. That is roughly 140 fighter with electronic attack and airborne early warning support. Don't forget that each Carrier Strike Group also brings an Ticonderoga Class Cruiser and up to three Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers all of them equipped with what might be the best air defense system out there. Attach an SSGN and the USN will kick any attackers azz coming and going. Those few survivors of the strike would find themselves without an airbase to return to. Underestimate the United States Navy at your own peril. The Superhornet may not be the airframe doing the swankest maneuvers at the airshow, but if it ever came down to real combat operations I think the Superhornet naysayers would be eating their words

The Superhornet may not be the airframe doing the swankest maneuvers at the airshow, but if it ever came down to real combat operations I think the Superhornet naysayers would be eating their words

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.

The F-14's were CONVENIENTLY eliminated to rush in pro-Cheney replacement solutions. It made little sense to spend $80-100 million to replace each airframe with brand new equipment when the F-35 was clearly already on the horizon. Fiscally irresponsible. It was far cheaper in the grand scheme to keep the F-14's around until F-35.

Quote:

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.

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

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.
Anyway the Super Hornet is a more viable option nowadays, the times where huge bomber fleets with ASMs were threatening USN carriers are over anyway and there is almost no obvious enemy with a large number of high end fighters. Typhoons and Rafales aren't operated by any enemies, the most advanced Fulcrums are operated in very small numbers by Yemen and Russia (and some other country I forgot about), the most Flanker variants in service are still outdated Flanker B/C without upgrades and the MKK/MK2 variants appear not to be overly impressive either. The Super Hornet with its reduced RCS, advanced IDECM, AN/APG-79 and AIM-120C7/D should be quite capable anyway, also in the fleet defender role. The Tomcat had a very powerful radar and missile at its time, but that's it. It's acceleration and climb performance was terrible, particularly for the F-14A which was the most numerous variant, not overly great stats for an interceptor. The Super Hornet shouldn't be to worse in that regards in comparison to the F-14 and at the same time it's much more survivable and with its AN/APG-79 radar surely better equipped than the F-14. The AIM-120D also promises to approach the AIM-54's range and is certainly a more deadly missile.

Forum: Air Power

Aircraft Roles in the 21st Century USN?