Question about the changes in Naval aviation over the last 20 years.

[WEGL12]

I have a quick question about the evolution of Naval aviation over the last two decades. I know times have changed along with current situations but I have always wondered why the Navy replaced several different airframes with the F-18. I know it's more cost efficient but is the F-18 really able to take the role of the F-14, A-6, A-7, and S-3? I understand it on a cost viewpoint but always wondered if the move was because current threats are not the traditional threats. Same question can be asked with the number of aircraft carriers. I noticed that in the early 90s seven or eight carriers were retired but only replaced by two or three new ships. I always assumed that the end of the Cold War had a lot to do with the draw down but wondered if we anticipate trouble with major countries in the future. Just interested in what people thought on this topic.

 

[Renegade One]

I have a quick question ...I have always wondered why the Navy replaced several different airframes with the F-18. I know it's more cost efficient...

You just answered most of your own questions. That's from a F-4/F-14 kinda guy…so it was hard for me to actually type that. But it's true.

... is the F-18 really able to take the role of the F-14, A-6, A-7, and S-3?

Yes for the first three. S-3? Except in it's very valuable "late in life" tanker role…no. I do believe we have lost something there…but it's not my swim lane. ASW is a very specific, unique and valuable capability. I think we have a gap…but I can't articulate that with any credibility. Others here can.

Same question can be asked with the number of aircraft carriers. I noticed that in the early 90s seven or eight carriers were retired but only replaced by two or three new ships. I always assumed that the end of the Cold War had a lot to do with the draw down...

Yes, it did.

...but wondered if we anticipate trouble with major countries in the future. Just interested in what people thought on this topic.

We do anticipate that. Everyone has their own opinions on your "interest topic". Thanks for your interest.

 

[WEGL12]

Yes for the first three. S-3? Except in it's very valuable "late in life" tanker role…no. I do believe we have lost something there…but it's not my swim lane. ASW is a very specific, unique and valuable capability. I think we have a gap…but I can't articulate that with any credibility. Others here can.

That is similar to what a former F-14 pilot told me. If I remember correctly he claims the F-18 is good at both the attack and fighter role but isn't great in one area like the F-14 and A-6. I always assumed that once the S-3 was retired more ASW was performed by the H-60 squadrons to fill the gap left by the Viking retirement. Just an interesting topic to me because going all the way back to WWII air wings had several different speciality planes (attack, fighter, scouting, etc.) and now the air wing is centered around a multi purpose aircraft.

 

[Renegade One]

That is similar to what a former F-14 pilot told me...and now the air wing is centered around a multi purpose aircraft.

As to the first part…us F-14 guys do talk some shit. Yes to the last part.

 

[Fog]

2 more cents: Historically, the Navy has always preferred dedicated fighter & attack roles & a/c (The AF never understood the difference). But the development of highly effective AA radars & SAM missiles made sub-sonic attack a/c obsolete (e.g., Bekaa Valley). That plus the ballooning cost of a/c has made multi-role fighter-attack a/c indispensable. The F-4 & F-14 could have done this for the Navy (the F-14D did), but the Navy wasn't ready at the time to accept the inevitability of what was coming. JMHO.

 

[Wingnut172N]

The other thing is that technology has changed the attack/strike role significantly. Whereas in Korea/Vietnam it required 100+ bombs and an Alpha Strike to knock out a bridge, a F/A-18 can do the same with a single JDAM. No reason to send an A-6 screaming into a target with 30+ Mk82's anymore when a Hornet can do the same job, plus some for less $$$

 

[jtmedli]

The other thing is that technology has changed the attack/strike role significantly. Whereas in Korea/Vietnam it required 100+ bombs and an Alpha Strike to knock out a bridge, a F/A-18 can do the same with a single JDAM. No reason to send an A-6 screaming into a target with 30+ Mk82's anymore when a Hornet can do the same job, plus some for less $$$

I think the argument isn't so much the F/A role of the Hornet as it is that we're losing the ASW/Tanking capability of the S-3. But, just to play devil's advocate, what could an updated A-6 do with 30+ JDAMS?

 

[FrankTheTank]

Just for the record, the S-3 was not a good tanker! 3000 & 1500 lbs for mission and recovery tanking, respectively. It just filled a void. It was ok at ASW, depending on crew currency and equipment status (shit was old). It was very good at SSC. The radar though lacking color was very good especially once locked in the ISAR mode. I forget max "give" tanking numbers but it still wasn't great even as a yo-yo. It had plumbing issues which limited its "give". But it was a fun though ugly jet and I'm sure the 1000+ hours didn't hurt the resume.

 

[Renegade One]

I think the argument isn't so much the F/A role of the Hornet as it is that we're losing the ASW/Tanking capability of the S-3. But, just to play devil's advocate, what could an updated A-6 do with 30+ JDAMS?

You're not playing "Devil's Advocate" BIG enough: "How about if we add Warp Speed, PHOTON torpedoes and a Cloaking Device?"

That's how it's done...

 

[OUSOONER]

Let the big boys handle ASW...

 

[WEGL12]

The other thing is that technology has changed the attack/strike role significantly. Whereas in Korea/Vietnam it required 100+ bombs and an Alpha Strike to knock out a bridge, a F/A-18 can do the same with a single JDAM. No reason to send an A-6 screaming into a target with 30+ Mk82's anymore when a Hornet can do the same job, plus some for less $$$

That's a good point about the advancements in technology. But like jtmedli said the A-6 could have been modified to carry the new technology. But I can see where it isn't practical now because the cost to upgrade the plane and it seems like missions don't require attacking 20+ targets in one mission. I guess the F-35 will step in as a alternate attack aircraft from what I have heard (if it ever makes it to the fleet). I can see where the F/A-18 can fill the roll of the A-6 well but always wondered if it can go toe to toe with modern fighters. Renegade One indicated that it is able to fill the roll of the F-14 but I wonder how it can stand up with the new stealth aircraft such as the Sukhoi Pak or the Chinese J-20. The past 10 years, the true fighter capabilities were not as important because most enemies didn't have a major air to air threat. I do believe new technology gives some advantages but in the end it comes down to the training of the pilots and I believe we have a major advantage in that category.

 

[Catmando]

The other thing is that technology has changed the attack/strike role significantly. Whereas in Korea/Vietnam it required 100+ bombs and an Alpha Strike to knock out a bridge, a F/A-18 can do the same with a single JDAM. No reason to send an A-6 screaming into a target with 30+ Mk82's anymore when a Hornet can do the same job, plus some for less $$$

Just let the record show that while you are certainly correct about the early part of Vietnam, smart bombs came into their own in the end of that war, and from multiple platforms.

After years of trying to down the Thanh Hoa Bridge (and losing a lot of crews trying) with multi-plane Alpha Strikes and uncounted number of dumb bombs, the bridge was finally brought down by one aircraft with a smart bomb.

Indeed our F-4s, A-7s, and A-6s all carried smart bombs near the end of the war, including LGBs and TV guided Walleyes along with HARMs.

PS: Best Texaco I ever tanked off of was an A-3. Lots of gas and stable.

 

[BusyBee604]

Indeed our F-4s, A-7s, and A-6s all carried smart bombs near the end of the war, including LGBs and TV guided Walleyes along with HARMs.

And earlier, A-4s also with LGBs, Walleyes, Super Shrikes, and semi-smart Bullpup-Bs.

PS: Best Texaco I ever tanked off of was an A-3. Lots of gas and stable.

Amen to that, the 'Whale' ruled!
BzB

 

[Catmando]

And earlier, A-4s also with LGBs, Walleyes, Super Shrikes, and semi-smart Bullpup-Bs.

Amen to that, the 'Whale' ruled!
BzB

Indeed! And I stand corrected.

 

[RadicalDude]

I can see where the F/A-18 can fill the roll of the A-6 well but always wondered if it can go toe to toe with modern fighters. Renegade One indicated that it is able to fill the roll of the F-14 but I wonder how it can stand up with the new stealth aircraft such as the Sukhoi Pak or the Chinese J-20. The past 10 years, the true fighter capabilities were not as important because most enemies didn't have a major air to air threat. I do believe new technology gives some advantages but in the end it comes down to the training of the pilots and I believe we have a major advantage in that category.

If only we had some sort I institution... A school even, where the brightest tactical minds could come together and tackle these problems. Maybe even write a book, or a manual, if you will, of best practices, or "recommendations." Maybe then we could have a way to counter the evolving threat on a consistent basis. A Rhino FAG can dream...