• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)

Boss_BlueAngels

Instrument training
Super Hornet not so super??

Man, after reading an article on the Super Hornet in the store the other day, it sure sounds like it's a waste of money. It was comparing a proposed F-14E Tomcat II that would be a re-designed Tomcat, like the Super Hornet is to the regular Hornets. The article said how when testing Tomcats they would use F/A-18C's to be the chase plane, and how the Tomcats out ran the Hornets, was faster and out lasted them. And now the regular Hornets flying chse for the Super Hornet are better. As quoted from the pilot of the chase plane commenting on the Super Hornet said, "we basically out ran them, out flew them, and ran them out of gas. I was pretty embarassed for them." Then commenting on bad "wing-over" problems, and also buffetting problems.

How true is this? Was the article talking of the prototype Super Hornet... or are the fleet models like this? I thought the Super Hornet was better, with better fuel endurance, range and everything. (that is, better than existing C/D Hornets)
Thanks for any clarifacation on this. :)
God bless
 

Kraftwerk

Registered User
Yeah, I read the same article but I think the authors made some pretty unsound assumptions. Buy F-14's back from Iran? Seems to me that they're diehard Tomcat devotees who, like anyone, are waxing nostalgic on the Tomcat's impending demise. Make no mistake about it, the Tomcat is the kickassinest bird out there right now, and performancewise the Bugs (old and new) have never been able to touch it. But Tomcat airframes are getting very old and timed-out and from an engineering standpoint it would be more cost-effective to start anew. Granted, some mission capabilities will be lost with the F-14, but the upgrade possibilities for the Superbug have hardly been explored yet. Now, I'm still not going to want Bugs, I'll hopefully be selecting F-14's in four-five months time. The most disconcerting piece in there was that a Superbug can't go supersonic below 10k, can that possibly be true?
 

EODDave

The pastures are greener!
pilot
Super Moderator
Amen,

The Fat Lady has sung. And Elvis has left the building.

DAVE
 

Boss_BlueAngels

Instrument training
Well, lol being a high school student I almost have no choice BUT to listen to what these people say in those magizines! lol

I am pleased to hear, though, that the SuperHornet is a sweet airplane and for its cause is better than the Tomcat. The Tomcat is a sweet jet, but by the time I'm in the Navy it will be in museums. j/k

I did get to see a Super Hornet fly at an airshow this last June, and it was love at first sight. :D
Thanks Matt, this was very reassuring to hear about (in my opinion) the sweetest jet in the fleet.
God bless.
 

Frumby

Super *********
pilot
Super Moderator
I wouldn't say "The Sweetest." God bless Grumman Iron! Real men fly steam gauges. Plastic and electrics are for those who miss their Tonka toys! Semper Fi! Frumby

Attack Pilot
Major USMC
 

Kraftwerk

Registered User
I haven't been suckered. I'm an oldschool steam-powered rock'n'roll gunfightin' rubber-burnin' gear-bangin' knuckledragger! I feel the F-14 fits that image better than a nintendo Hornet.
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
Single seat or two seat super hornets

Is the navy buying more two seat super hornets now? Could someone explain the different rolls they both play, I mean if they do the same thing why would they have the two different versions? Are all the F-14 guys going to 2 seat hornets? I read in another post that the single seat guys where having problems with task saturation, if this is true why wouldnt they just all go to having goose in the back seat?
 
B

Blutonski816

Guest
From what I hear, single seaters, having greater fuel Capacity are much more valuable as tankers, where as 2-seaters are used primarily for FAC missions...
As cost-effective as the idea of only one type of airframe sounds, there are so many roles that must be taken care of, and sometimes one type will excel at one role where another will excel at something else....

Not all F-14 squadrons have taken 2 seaters... 2 of the 12 former Tomcat squadrons have taken single seaters, with a 3rd slated for transition in late '06
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
It seems wierd that the navy would use a fighter as a tanker. I guess this is out of necessity, but why didnt they just keep an airframe like the S-3 or A-6 to fill that roll. It just seems like they are using a 2 seat sports car as a taxi-cab almost.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
xmid said:
It seems wierd that the navy would use a fighter as a tanker. I guess this is out of necessity, but why didnt they just keep an airframe like the S-3 or A-6 to fill that roll. It just seems like they are using a 2 seat sports car as a taxi-cab almost.
A tanking asset is a tanking asset regardless of whether it's an S-3 or a Hornet. Those older airframes are just too expensive to keep around to use solely for that purpose when there's a perfectly good Hornet that can do the same thing at a much lower operating cost.

Brett
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
I didnt really mean that hornets were to good to do it or something, I meant that I dont understand why the navy doesnt find/build an airframe that could hold alot more fuel and be better for the role. I'm pretty sure that the answer comes down to money. I dont even know how much fuel the hornet can carry, can it refuel more than a couple planes on in one flight?
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
xmid said:
I didnt really mean that hornets were to good to do it or something, I meant that I dont understand why the navy doesnt find/build an airframe that could hold alot more fuel and be better for the role. I'm pretty sure that the answer comes down to money. I dont even know how much fuel the hornet can carry, can it refuel more than a couple planes on in one flight?
It's called a KC-10. Lots of gas but challenging to recover while afloat. A carrier based aircraft is only going to be able to hold so much gas, and the cost and time required to built a dedicated tanker is a non-starter. Everything today is about multi-role and multi purpose. That way, strike planners can be flexible with their assets. The recovery taker isn't designed to give people big quantities of fuel (that's what the big strategic tankers are for), it gives lots of people little sips - enough to complete the recovery.

Brett
 

Yessir

Hooker
pilot
xmid said:
I didnt really mean that hornets were to good to do it or something, I meant that I dont understand why the navy doesnt find/build an airframe that could hold alot more fuel and be better for the role. I'm pretty sure that the answer comes down to money.
Definitely money, the whole idea behind the sunset of the Tomcat and the procurement of the Super Hornet was so that most aircraft on the carrier would have common parts and therefore reduce the cost of maintenance. The rhino can fight, can tank, and apparently can conduct electronic warfare. If the navy could figure out how to throw a large revolving radar dish on top of the hornet they would. To aquire an airframe exclusively for refueling would be a waste of money and time.....the JSF has been decided for three years now and it wont hit the fleet for another six years....besides let the Air Force do the tanking. My $0.02
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
I didnt know the hornet gave "sips" to aid recovery. That makes alot more sense. So I guess with the rhinos that will replace the ea-6 this means that the flight deck will be almost all hornets and helo's? How do they intend to condense the roles of 3 guys in to one for that? Gucci computers?
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
xmid said:
I didnt know the hornet gave "sips" to aid recovery. That makes alot more sense. So I guess with the rhinos that will replace the ea-6 this means that the flight deck will be almost all hornets and helo's? How do they intend to condense the roles of 3 guys in to one for that? Gucci computers?
Pretty much. For all practical purposes, the Prowler backseat stuff can be done by one competant ECMO, and the new systems of ICAP III that will be going into the G model are pretty amazing. With the older systems, there's a lot more "man in the loop" stuff going on, but many of these current ECMO functions will be streamlined and automated by the quality and fidelity of the new system. This will free up the ECMO to manage the system and focus less on the more mundane tasks like signal recognition, and more on big picture things.

Brett
 
Top