Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Just because it is worst than the F-14D Super Tomcat, the Tomcat is better in all arenas, air-air; air to ground, Speed, range, weapons load, radar capabilities, endurance and so on, even the F-18C is better, better acceleration, range, manouverability, etc..it seems that the F-18E/F was elected by some political influence, perhaps Boeing needs money and have to sell a "new" aircraft, although it is inferior to the Super Tomcat...Gimme an F-14D and even I could turn into pieces the super Bug 18.....

F-16.net Sponsor

Puraca70, you've got some things wrong in your post. I'll let the others get into it more in depth, but some basic correction and points of note. The F-18 E/F is more manuverable than any F-14. The F-14 was bound to a 6.5 G limit or they'd mess up some stuff in the wingbox. TC knows more about it, but he's the one who said it. In Air to Air, the Phoenix made the F-14, but I don't think any (maybe one by Iran) was ever fired in combat. There are no more Phoenix's, so we can leave this off the table. I'm not sure, but I don't believe the F-14 was even equiped for the AMRAAM, I think it was done with the Sparrow. The F-14 also has the largest radar signature of any fighter, the F-18 is about 1/100th or smaller on radar than the Tomcat ever was. Air to Mud, well I can't really tell you but the F-18E/F has become really good at Air to Mud. On to Speed, here's the thing, the Ruskies aren't coming over the pole anymore. Fulda Gap isn't an issue, speed is not the be-all-end-all it used to be. You can see it's influence in a lot of aircraft from the time the Tomcat was made and earlier, you have the F-4 which sacrificed manuverability for speed (interceptor) and the F-15 which was a M2.5 aircraft (like the Tomcat). Truth is, unless you're talking futuristic bombers, the world is slowing down. Now, the radar on the super bug is going to be superior to the radar on most aircraft out there today. It's using an AESA radar, where the Tomcat was using something like Pulse Doppler. The radome of Tomcat was much bigger than the bug's. Hell the Tomcat was friggin' huge, you can probably fit more super bugs on a carrier than Tomcats any day. Maintenance, the Tomcat was AN ENORMOUS PIG. The thing was horrible on the maintenance crews. The super bug comes with much less maintenance than the Tomcat, probably by an order of magnitude. As for the acceleration and speed, newer engine stuff is being looked at for the super bug. That's the only friggin' tidbit anyone is getting so don't even friggin' ask.

Everyone rags on the super bug, but you can't compare it to a Raptor. Nothing compares well to a Raptor, as for the rest of the aircraft in the world... I'll hand off to the pros.

As you said Lordofbunnies, lets hear the pros, check this site, then tell me....I still think (not only me), that the tomcat will kick anybody, may be not the F-22 or eurofighter, but certanly the F-18E/F..http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/595147/posts R ADM Gillcrist, with more than 33 years of experience thinks that too.........http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp.
Check that info out.....Also, do you know that a USN Sqn put in its motto: F-18 by mandate, F-14 by choice?...no more word, it is all said...

Quote:

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp.
Check that info out.....Also, do you know that a USN Sqn put in its motto: F-18 by mandate, F-14 by choice?...no more word, it is all said...

I've read that article before, but you can't trust these kinds of articles to heart. You can find a lot of junk on the internet these days. The writer is probably just a wanna be naval aviator or tomcat fanatic that can't take the fact that the tomcat is being replaced by a plane that was named after a bug. And for the motto thingy about 18's by mandate sh*t thing, that doesn't tell us anything about the plane,it was a biased statement, it's just a tomcat patch that the pilots wore close to transitioning time, probably a CAG pilot made it. This is probably why communism is the best system of government in the dictionary because the public can't say whats good or bad for their country.

Notice if you look at the patch, it's not a super hornet, it's just a hornet Cheers

The F-18E/F has not an as succesful public relations campaign.

The F-22 has a huge public relations because they had to try and sell the cost of it to the public. The F-35 will have the same thing no doubt (trust me if the blue angels and the thunderbirds get there hands on this thing expect their public appearances to almost double).

The F-14 got its public relations through 'Top Gun' mainly. Quite simply the F-18E/F has not had this yet.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with the F-18E/F, the only thing currently in service that it can't own in A2A combat is the F-22 and when you start talking about A2G combat well my bonner explains everything.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with the F-18E/F, the only thing currently in service that it can't own in A2A combat is the F-22 and when you start talking about A2G combat well my bonner explains everything.[/quote]

I don´t think so...A Rafale, An Eurofighter, a SU-27/35, a Gripen, even and "old" F-18A/C, F-15 or F-16 (block 50/60) could take the Super Hornet down very easily...all of these have a more favourable weight to trust ratio, are more manouverable, and can out turn the F-18E/F.

It seems that the main concept of USN nowadays is: With the help of the advantages of LO techonology, AESA techonology, NG integrated EWS, NG net-centric warfares, NG cockpit, AAMs with continuous improvement (AIM-120C5, AIM-120C7, AIM-120D..........), and pilots with better training, the F/A-18E/F will still be able to handle the threats with better agility and maneuverability very well in the foreseeable future.

Only time will tell that if this concept is right or wrong.

pucara70 wrote:

Oh and there is nothing wrong with the F-18E/F, the only thing currently in service that it can't own in A2A combat is the F-22 and when you start talking about A2G combat well my bonner explains everything.

I don´t think so...A Rafale, An Eurofighter, a SU-27/35, a Gripen, even and "old" F-18A/C, F-15 or F-16 (block 50/60) could take the Super Hornet down very easily...all of these have a more favourable weight to trust ratio, are more manouverable, and can out turn the F-18E/F.[/quote]

The F/A-18 has Slow speed maneuverability...

F/A-18 vs F-16/15/Su-27 family boils down to A6M Zero vs F4U Corsair all over again after the merge. In order to win with slow speed maneuverability, you have to get your opponent to go slow with you... Any 16 pilot with a less draggy airframe and better T/W ratio could keep the fight above 400 knots, and that'd be it for any Hornet driver in close. BVR things are a bit more even, with the Hornet having an impressive radar and avionics suite, and it's a great A2G bombtruck, though I suspect the JSF will be better.

I wouldn't want to be in an 18, personally. The SH is not an "Upgrade", and should've had an entirely new Airframe, a less draggy one, and bigger engines, and it would've been as capable as it's airforce bretheren.

pucaroo70

So, another one of the informed. I would like to know where you get your info? You sound like you really know your stuff, but in reality you are just another armchair QB spouting off. You get your info from the web and then deem yourself said expert on todays and yesterdays (F-14) military aircraft. The Tom could never, ever turn with a Rhino. Just wont happen. The Rhino is one of the best, if not the best, handling aircraft at slow speeds in any A2A arena. Couple that with the APG-79 radar, JHMCS, AMRAAM and the 9X and you have one potent fighter on your hands. The Rhino also is head and shoulders above a Tomcat, Raptor and many other modern aircraft in the A2Ground arena. The Rhino can carry just as much as a Tomcat in weight and more types of weapons as well.

The comment of "the SH cant break the numbers below 10K feet clean" are just plain wrong. I don't know where people get there info, but once again another ignorant statement by the uniformed.

Other comment about "I wouldn't want to be in an 18 personally" are also bogus statements. When Viper guys that have flown both say that they would rather take a hornet to war than a viper, "That" is a big endorsement for the Hornet. Those that have flown Hornets and SH's would take a SH any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And give me a break. I have never met anyone off the street who wouldn't give his left nut to get a ride in a Rhino.

Also I'm glad the Navy isn't spending big $$$ to make you or anybody else on the street feel that the SH is the best thing since sliced bread. I'd rather they spend the money on more SH's, APG-79's, JHMCS, etc.....

Like I said before. You may want to start your rants with "its my opinion" other than "I know ......", because you really don't. You and the general public have no clue what modern aircraft can do. All you do is take information from a website that has some type of media "spin" on it and then proclaim its the gospel. Come on you have to be smarter than that.

Toan sounds like he may be on to something. Cool

Later

Pucarooskie70 Mr. Green

and others

Try reading this thread.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2474.html

or this one,

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200306/ai_n9262073

OOOH! INO, that second link blew up my computer with pop-ups Laughing

There was also no article? Is it just my antique system, I hope so!

The first link made the point though Wink

Quote:

all of these have a more favourable weight to trust ratio, are more manouverable, and can out turn the F-18E/F.

Those are really dog fighting characteristics, what about beyond visual range warfare?
Lets see, Aim-120D, lower radar cross signature than all of them bar one and more powerful radar than all of those fighters bar one.

Oh and EW suite.

In a recent JDAM drop test the USN did at China Lake, one APG-79 equipped SH datalinked targetting coordinates to four older APG-73 SH's carrying one JDAM each. Each SH dropped their JDAM smack bang on target. This means that in a gorilla package, only one out of seven jets needs to radiate, the rest can remain passive.
I had the privelige of watching Ricardo Travis' SH demo at the Melbourne airshow, what amazed me was some of the manuveures he did(especially one in the vertical), he did with a half decent load on board,not in clean configuration.

Hitting a target with a GPS guided bomb only says that the avionics can release a bomb once it detects it in range of the coordinates, hardly says anything about the aircraft itself, just that JDAMs are very accurate.

Just about any modern jet with precision munitions can hit a target, the question is how far can they take them?

Again, BVR i'd still take an Eagle/Viper over a Hornet, especially if I have AWACS/GCI support. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Rhino's reduced RCS would prevent a 15/16 from getting a lock on it before in missile range. Especially in the F-15's case. Still doesn't answer the question of the merge which I think is no means guaranteed not to happen (Otherwise the USAF wouldn't still practice BFM). Speed is life. Going slow is counter to everything that I personally have read on air combat.

How did Erich Hartmann rack up 352 Allied kills? High-Speed Attacks.
How did Allied Pilots defeat the A6M, which had LEGENDARY low speed maneuverability after the introduction of the F6F/F4U? High-Speed attacks.
What was the main advantage F-105s and F-4s had over the MiG-17? Speed. All an American pilot in a fast mover vs a MiG had to do was hit the burners if he decided he didn't want to fight.

Today, the F/A-18 can't do that against many other aircraft. F-15/16, Su-27 Family, MiG-29 Family, EF2000, all have lower drag airframes and better T/W ratios. Luckily, the AMRAAM is probably the best missile in the world. I just don't see the US Navy being able to do any serious Air-to-Air work in the near future. Doesn't matter for fleet defense, with Aegis equipped ships in the battleground, though. The Super Slow Hornet's just too slow to keep up with the competition. Not being able to hit Mach 1 loaded up below 10000 feet is pathetic. Even with long range AAM if the enemy turns and runs if you hope to still kill him you'd better be fast because a Missile's range is going to drop off by a substantial amount when it's not a head on shot. Closure rate between missile and aircraft could easily get as low as Mach 2 depending on the missile fired. Even worse if the opponent dives, thick air can't be too good for a missile's range, either.

Worse than that, the F/A-18 pilot can't choose to run away. If a MiG pilot feels lucky and doesnt mind burning all his fuel, it could easily catch up with a Running SH. Su-27 could as well, but those things have huge internal fuel capacity (9000kg I believe), spending a few minutes in burner is easily an option for a Flanker pilot.

All I can say is that it's a good thing that US Navy pilots have a history of working serious magic in the cockpit.

The SH being built in the first place was probably an admission of some deficiencies in the original Hornet. The SH is just too capable/versatile a machine to be taken lightly though. A2G it is second to none, I have seen the SH fly with a full weapons load, with unequal loads on either wing pull off incredible turns and maneuvers.

The range issue is solved by buddy re-fueling and tankers, we have all seen the pictures of the SH carrying 5 gas bags! In Afghanistan, SH was refueled by, amongst others, RAF tankers with probe and drogue.
Don`t forget also that the SH doesn`t fly in alone all the time. JOINT operations are becoming pretty commonplace now. When land bases are available, a strike package will have F-15 top cover. In all recent conflicts, this has been the case.....

You tailor your tactics to suit your air assets and the mission, it`s called flexibility. The SH seems to have done just fine so far. Can anyone give an account of when the SH has been outclassed or unable to do the job it has been asked to do? I haven`t heard about that recently....IE, GW2 missions were successful, Afghanistan, another success...

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Why is there so little love for the F-18 Super Hornet?