Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

I was recently looking at some grumman proposals for future f-14's. One that really caught my eye was the ST-21. The main changes were a redesigned glove area and modified wing flaps/leading edges for eaiser maintenance, improved f110's, and a single piece canopy. Some minor changes were an improved apg-71 and integrated LANTIRN in place of the aim-54 oil cooling system. Grumman said that they could either be new builds or retrofits of existing f-14D's.

So, could the st-21 have been a viable alternative to the superhornet?

F-16.net Sponsor

No. The USN from the 1990's through today has focused on affordability in it's carrier air wings. The F-14 was retired early because it was twice as expensive to operate as an F/A-18. They also retired early the A-6, KA-6, S-3, and EA-3. Today the carriers operate around 2/3rds of the aircraft they used to.

An improved F-14 would have been a far better interceptor than the SH and the A-6 was a far better strike aircraft: moreover, both had far more range than the SH. Frankly if anything the A-6F was far more important than an advanced F-14 and in any case both were cut.

Eventually the carrier air wings will operate 2 sqdn's of F-35C, 2 sqdn's of NGAD (F/A-XX), and 1 sqdn of fighter sized UCAS. The NGAD will be optimized for air to air, twin seat, and will be the true replacement for the F-14 fleet defense fighter.

If the Cold War had not ended and defense had been a priority in the 1990's then probably we'd still be flying the F-14 and the A-6F. The biggest hit on carrier aviation was the loss of the all weather medium attack sqdn's and the death of the A-12, the A-6F killed, and the A-6' retired early. That community, and that sqdn within the carrier air wing, is gone for a very long time if not forever.

lb wrote:

Eventually the carrier air wings will operate 2 sqdn's of F-35C, 2 sqdn's of NGAD (F/A-XX), and 1 sqdn of fighter sized UCAS. The NGAD will be optimized for air to air, twin seat, and will be the true replacement for the F-14 fleet defense fighter.

I've always been curious about this. Why would the navy go through the f-35 hassle if they're going to develop f/a-xx? In my opinion a cheaper solution would be developing a "block 3" superhornet until f/a-xx comes online.

(dammit, now i've gotten off topic Laughing

)

The F/A-XX (if it ever exists) is likely 25-30 years away from IOC. The USN needs a new striker NOW for the treats that it will face in those 25-30 years.

What threat would that be. Generally they've refought Vietnam era equipment the past four decades and there are so few newer threats than ever before. Its not just the U.S. facing budgetary issues the next 25 years.

Modern SAMs like S-300/400/500, etc & 4.5 to 5th gen fighters (Mig-35, SU-35, PAK FA, J-20, etc)

btw, OAF, ODS, & OIF involved 4th gen platforms like Mig-25/29s & Su-25s nevermind the increased capability of AAA & SAM forces that they have faced.

If Libya had happened 5-10 years from now, our guys would likely be facing Mig-35s or Rafeles being backed up by much newer SAMs.

I don't buy this F-14D/A-6F jazz. On an avionics/sensor level, they wouldn't compare to the Super Hornet in my opinion (minus F-14 IRST). LANTIRN is OLD, ATFLIR is better. The AIM-54 has a questionable kill ratio, I'd rather go to war with AIM-120Ds. Is the F-14D more maneuverable than a F/A-18E/F? I don't think so. I will say the F-14D has better range and can bring back a bigger load. The A-6F would've had more range as well and be able to carry more bombs and wouldn't have to use a weapons station for a targeting pod. I've said this before, and I'll say it again; TODAY's Intruders and Tomcats might be further upgraded from the original A-6F and F-14D variants to include the latest avionics, radars, engine upgrades, jammers, targeting pods, communications gear, etc etc. Maybe we should clarify a few things (for the sake of argument), if not you're gonna get some wacky Phantom Phanatic in here saying to hell with the F-14 (and everything associated with it), we should've kept the F-4S and upgraded it to F-4R standard with AESA radar, new weapons, new avionics, single pane touch-screen display, F414 engines, CFTs, targeting pod, IRST, and what not.

Last edited by aaam on Apr 09, 2011 - 02:21 AM; edited 2 times in total

Popping in for a moment to do some clarifications.

1. Super Tomcat 21 (ST-21) was not proposed as an alternative to Super Hornet (SH). SH didn't even exist at the time ST-21 was proposed. ST-21 was proposed as a much cheaper alternative to the NATF. Wouldn't have been stealthy, would have ~ 90% of the air-to-air capability, and would have been much better in strike. It would have been far superior to the SH in virtually all aspects except cost, but as I said, it was not meant to be the alternative to SH. I posted elsewhere on the forum a detailed description of ST-21, http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

2. The alternative offered to Super Hornet was the F-14D Quickstrike, also known as the "Block IV" upgrade. It would have cost a small fraction of what it cost to bring SH into service, would have been available sooner and would have been better in both fighter and strike. It would have cost $2 million more a copy than SH and would cost more to operate, but nowhere near as much more as was indicated by the disinformation put out since then.

3. F-14D is more agile in some areas than SH, not as much in others. Please note that at the time it was conceded that the F-14 was the better fighter, however the Official Position was that there wasn't any foreseeable threat that required that advantage. It's also worthy of note that the Navy also said that the Hornet C/D was a better fighter than the E/F, that's not where the SH's advantages lay. Please don't forget that both SH and F-14D Block IV were envisioned as interim aircraft, pending the arrival of AX (later A/FX).

4. Navy did not choose SH, it chose F-14D. SECDEF Cheney canceled production of F-14D just as it successfully completed its development. DoD repeatedly ordered Navy to buy SH. The writing was on the wall and so that's the way the Fleet went.

5. It is not valid to make comparisons between an a/c with the systems of today with an a/c with the systems of 1990-91. More valid would be to compare the SH as it existed at IOC with what F-14D Block IV would have been at same time, or where Tomcat would have been today.

6. F-14D and SH have same "bringback" (Hornet A/D noticeably less) and ST-21 would have had nearly double of either.

7. A-6F was canceled because its IOC at the time was thought to be not that much earlier than A-12. It made no sense to have an A-6F if the A-12 was only a few years behind it. Hindsight shows that we made the wrong decision for the right reasons.

8. A-6 was retired early to help fund, and because there were questions raised about why the SH was being developed given how long it was intended to keep the A-6 for deep strike.

9. Once the F-14 was selected for extinction, it became very expensive to operate as parts were no longer being manufactured, and its logistical priority fell partly because it no longer had strong advocates at high posts at NAVAIR, and because the SH lobby was so strong. The SH was the Navy's official "Superplane". For example, at the Tomcat's last public demonstration it was not allowed to do any of its signature moves. At its retirement ceremony it was not allowed to do any of the traditional "beating up " of the airfield, just a straight dry departure. In fact, at the retirement, the Tomcat on the ramp was flanked by two SHs, just to emphasize the point.

10 AIM-54 officially was only fired in anger by USN in one engagement and missed. But, in that same engagement F-15s fired multiple AIM-120s and they all missed as well. In Iran-Iraq war, AIM-54s were used with very good results. In fact, there were a number of cases where a single "Buffalo" killed multiple a/c. Had F-14D Block IV or ST-21 come to fruition, by now it's likely that Phoenix would have been replaced by AIM-152, anyway. Think of AIM-152 as "JDRADM lite", but 20 years sooner.

A better form of discussion would be if the F-14 airframe/design would still make a proper combat aircraft for the early 21st century. My answer would be yes, but it would've involved more money than anyone wanted to put up, but the F-14 would still be with us.

In a "more perfect" world, we would have something on the lines of the Super Tomcat 21 with the enlarged wing gloves, thicker wings, revised flap system, more current electronics systems, full MFD cockpits, and my favorite thing to add: F119 engines (couldn't find data on diameter, FF110s are 46.5 in) with 3D thrust vectoring nozzles. I think a revised pallet system that could carry fuel would make for a real range extending system, and I think there are areas along the fuselage that could be expanded a bit to increase fuel capacity, such as the dorsal spine and the expansive fairings running along the side of the engine pods that contain the landing gear as well as hydraulics and mountings for the horizontal stabilizers. From the cutaways I've seen, there is no fuel contained in them (perhaps a safety issue more than a capacity one?).

Well that's my wet dream.........whether the cost would be worth it or not, that is another issue altogether.

aaam wrote:

snip.

Thanks for the info aaam!

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the upgraded tomcat proposals are much more capable than the superbug, but how much more would they have been to maintain? One of the big advantages of the SH (imho its biggest) was its ease of maintainence compared to planes like the tomcat.

nusna_moebius wrote:

A better form of discussion would be if the F-14 airframe/design would still make a proper combat aircraft for the early 21st century. My answer would be yes, but it would've involved more money than anyone wanted to put up, but the F-14 would still be with us.

In a "more perfect" world, we would have something on the lines of the Super Tomcat 21 with the enlarged wing gloves, thicker wings, revised flap system, more current electronics systems, full MFD cockpits, and my favorite thing to add: F119 engines (couldn't find data on diameter, FF110s are 46.5 in) with 3D thrust vectoring nozzles. I think a revised pallet system that could carry fuel would make for a real range extending system, and I think there are areas along the fuselage that could be expanded a bit to increase fuel capacity, such as the dorsal spine and the expansive fairings running along the side of the engine pods that contain the landing gear as well as hydraulics and mountings for the horizontal stabilizers. From the cutaways I've seen, there is no fuel contained in them (perhaps a safety issue more than a capacity one?).

Well that's my wet dream.........whether the cost would be worth it or not, that is another issue altogether.

ST-21 had a full glass cockpit. It already had all the range the Navy wanted, so there was no consideration in adding significantly more fuel than was already grown into it. It also didn't need the thrust of the F119, so they didn't envision putting that engine into it. Now, there was a studied further growth version, Advanced Strike Fighter-21, which used the basic Tomcat aerodynamic shape, bu twas really quite different. Unlike the other ST-21 concepts, it would have to be all new build. It did envision F119s and thrust vectoring, but both Grumman and the Navy felt the benefits just weren't worth the cost so it faded from sight.

Super Tomcat 21 would have been perfectly viable today. However, even though I am a Tomcat fan, I would not have advocated it be developed. The plane the USN really needed was A/FX, but a combination of SH strength at NAVAIR and USAF hostility killed it. But in the absence of A/FX, ST-21 would be much better than what we ended up with.

smarino18 wrote:

aaam wrote:

snip.

Thanks for the info aaam!

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the upgraded tomcat proposals are much more capable than the superbug, but how much more would they have been to maintain? One of the big advantages of the SH (imho its biggest) was its ease of maintainence compared to planes like the tomcat.

It's not just maintenance in isolation, it's how much maintenance relative to capability. For example, SH requires far, far less maintenance than Raptor, but I don't think AF ever considered buying F/A-18E/Fs instead.

F-14D always required more maintenance than SH, but not as much more as people believe nowadays, and it was much more capable. In fact, during its fully supported years F-14D required less than half the mmh/fh that Raptor does, and ST-21 would have required even less, though they probably would never have gotten down to SH levels. It's all costs vs. capabilities.

Is maintenance man hour requirements based off maintenance allocation charts and tables or is data collected throughout the years or a combination? From what I know, compared to the whole F-14 fleet, the D model only represented a handful of aircraft out of the 632 built. I think eventually, only 55 D models ever entered service. That's 8.7% of he whole fleet. I wonder if F-14D MMH figures, FMC rates, and mission abort rates got lumped in with the F-14B and F-14A data. Perhaps if that douchebag Cheney hadn't canceled the F-14D production the whole fleet would have been upgraded to one common standard and would be less of a maintenance burden and have better availability rates. We certainly wouldn't have needed the Super Hornet had an all F-14D fleet existed. Tomcats would've eventually received AESA radars, towed decoys, advanced IFF, latest generation targeting pods, AIM-120 capability and a whole host of other upgrades making it way more comparable to the SH as far as maintenance goes. Cheney makes my blood boil.

Fair post, disco and can't disagree with the main points.

Retro-actively, I too could support a do-over concept (instead of developing the SH) which would have included 'evolving' significantly more F-14 airframes to a common -D upgrade, which itself could have been further evolved into an F-14D+, then F-14D++ as required.

That plan could have arguably been supplemented with new build F-14D+ as well (w/ AESA, new cockpit display, EW, and engines), effectively replacing retiring F/A-18C/D when they were due to retire and thus creating a single, common Carrier TACAIR logistical chain and training regime.

This fleet could have sufficied USN tactical requirements to what... mid to late 2020's? Just in time for the F/A-XX and UCAV mix? Such a plan probably could have required $10s billions less in USN funding requirements.

Of course... with USN pretty much locked into the 'big and revolutionary' JSF pardadigm and rationale, as early as 1993, it's truly not fair to single out Cheney here, imho. (taking into account a well-intended and perceived 'Hi-Low' model - involving a future SH+JSF mix)?

Have you guys ever wondered why the F-14s at AMARG were all chopped up? The reason I heard was to prevent parts from winding up in the hands of the Iranians. I know we sold F-4Es and F-5Es to Iran too, I don't see them being chopped up by the masses out there at DM. Cheney must have hated the F-14 that bad. That's my guess.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

supertomcat instead of superhornet?