The Tomcat Legacy; 35+ years from Fleet Air Defender to Recce to Precision Strike

[kevin]

perhaps that was unpatriotic? oh well, the truth hurts. back to the original subject, the f14 pilot i talked to at dayton said they were limited to pulling 6.5 g's cause of the old airframe, although it was originally capable of 9. so although the 14 might be the better plane, it would need to be seriously overhauled, i guess. this is pretty disconcerting stuff people are saying about naval airpower. but when air power is not the supreme focus (as with af) i guess that's what you expect. it just pisses me off cause it always seems like (at least from the news) whenever the u.s. is engaged, the navy bares the brunt of the air attack in the intial stage. maybe this is entirely innaccurate, just a perception though. by the way, someone mentioned that the navy was supposed to get some of the plane that won the atf contest. is that true? that's a damn shame it didnt get any of the f22 (then again, neither is anyone else for a while). sidenote: saw a program all about the contest of the yf22 vs yf23 and the latter was even more impressive. not only was it stealthier, but it had a vertical climb that was akin to the space shuttle.

 

[vegita1220]

unfortunately...it was ugly. REALLY ugly. : P

 

[StuffMaster]

I hate to tell you guys...but when you're running the numbers and spending billions of dollars (the waste of which could go to MORE shiny toys!), minimizing the airframe count matters. That's the whole reason for the Joint Strike Fighter. It'll save many billions of dollars in manufacturing, supply, and logistics. It doesn't quite compare performance-wise to the F-22, but it'll still kick the crap out of any adversery.

The F-18 was originally designed for the AF as a single-seat low cost fighter (it lost to the F-16). The Navy picked it up and added an engine and stuff. The fuel tank was NOT enlarged accordingly...hence the poor range. Why they did this is a mystery to me. I can't find the link to the document I read, but I'll look for it.

There is no supersonic Russian bomber fleet ready to strike a carrier, so justifying very-high performance fighters is hard when mere high performance will do. The Super Hornet will still rock any modern nation's Air Force. Having a semi-stealthy airframe that can fill multiple roles and is designed to last 20 years or more is a great thing.

I love the F-14 (long live Top Gun!). It's the most bad-ass looking aircraft ever made (with the SR-71 coming in second). But it's radar signature is the size of a blimp. It was designed in the 60's as an interceptor. With regard to air-to-air interception, it's still the king after 30 years. Going up against a massive radar and six Phoenixes per plane would scare Satan himself. However, when was the last time massive engines, Phoenix missles and a massive radar were necessary? I don't think they were at all since Vietnam. AWACS, Sidewinders and AMRAAMs sufficed quite well in the first Gulf War(correct me if I'm wrong). The DoD deemed it more expensive to upgrade to the role of replacement strike/fighter. People just love the F-14 so much...that's why they fought for it so hard.

An old, but good evalutation of the situation can be found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/GJP.htm

StuffMaster

 

[Dave Shutter]

I saw that same show on the ATF competition. Yes the YF-23 was superor to the F-22 in many ways (according to them anyway) but the cost of the F-23 was terribly obscene vs. midly obscene in the case of the Raptor. I also remember reading somewhere that Northrop had had some difficulties with various B-2 production issues and the AF didn't want to risk going through all of that again. After the success of the F-22 (so far) I think it was a given that the F-35 JSF would win having so much commonality with the Raptor. Kind of sucks though...we get the "mini-me" version of the AF"s next heavyweight jet. Oh well.

 

[NavyLonghorn]

Wimpy little F-22 prolly couldnt take an arresting cable.

 

[vegita1220]

The story goes:
The Navy didn't forget to make the Hornet fuel tank larger. The engineers forgot. You know how most planes go from prototype to test version to production? See the Navy was in this godawful hurry to get new planes(why? Really, why?) so when they did the whole YF-17 enlargement thang, they just wanted to concept test to see if it would work...which it did. But they forgot to change the fuel tank sometime down the road, and once it was locked in, it was supposed to be locked in. So you get a bird that can do an awful lot of things pretty well...but not at once. The theory is that it doesn't have the range to both bomb and dogfight.

That's the theory anyway. In the first Desert Storm I remember hearing about a bombing mission that some MiGs tried to bounce. The Hornets just switched a button, shot off missiles to kill the MiGs, then went back on their merry way to inflicting mayhem on the poor sunzabitches.

Anyway, StuffMaster, the author of that article is LCDR Gilchrist...any relation to Ret. Rear Adm Gilcrist?

Some of the stuff in that article seem dated...the F-14 now has allweather ground sensors in its SAR radar and can certainly has more payload and range than the F-18. Also the Tom now carries LANTIRN pods for self-designation.

If you read LCDR Gilchrist's article on the Quickstrike's shortcomings...you will notice that a modern Quickstrike would have provided everything they wanted in the Intruder...an allweather longrange strike plane capable of self-designation which would be reliable and easy to maintain. The only thing it can't do is terrain following flying. I almost laughed when I read that part of the article...almost. (I'm talking about the part where he discusses an F-14 upgrade as an Intruder replacement.) Isn't life ironic?

 

[theblakeness]

on the topic of Grumman...My Grandfathers squadron mate was former VP of Northrop Grumman and he was on Modern Marvals once that aired a special about the F-14. He is great guy to talk to, despite the fact that he lives i a nursing home these days.

 

[Attilla]

I don't know the numbers exactly, but... I belive it costs about 50% more per flight hour to operate a Tomcat in stead of a '18. I think that actual ground maintenance on the '18 is something like 70% cheaper than the Tomcat. I may be totally wrong since I'm quoting this from memory. However, if I am even remotely close on these figures, that would make the hornet more attractive purely from a budgeting standpiont. Besides the only line that politicians read is the bottom line.

"Would you like some freshly grated Romano cheese with your entree?"

 

[kevin]

"unfortunately...it was ugly. REALLY ugly." well hey, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...i thought it looked great, and i think the f35 looks like a d@#%o with an engine strapped on (not to be crewd, but that was my first thought). im just curious how impressive this scaled down version of the f22 is going to be. like was mentioned in that article, it bothers me a little that one plane (with minor modifications) would serve as a tri-service aircraft. that seems inherently dangerous to me.

"The Super Hornet will still rock any modern nation's Air Force." going to disagree with you on that one in a big way. im gonna trust the pilot's themselves who say the thing is a piece.

 

[HornetDrvr]

Wow, what an impressive conversation. I am going to have to jump in and defend my airframe a little bit.

As has been pointed out the Tomcat is 60's technology. Granted the D gave the airframe a shot in the arm of 80's technology but never the less you are seeing an airframe that is basically a flying emergency procedure. Cost per flight hour goes without saying.

Let's address some of the particulars.

Airspeed: The only place where I will give the Tomcat the hands down edge. The thing can haul the chili. Where does it apply? In running away. I sure would like to run away at airspeeds like that. When was the last time you had a dogfight at 2.4M though? There is no better "knife in the phone booth" dogfighter than the Hornet. There are many other airframes out there that can outperform the Hornet in various parameters but where they shine in one area they give it up big time in another.

The big stick of the Phoenix. My personal opinion is that Bombcat came about because of the Phoenix not because of throwing actual bombs on the plane. The thing just falls off the plane as much as it ignites and flies never mind guides, hits etc. At any rate the Phoenix was designed to hit Russian Bears way the heck out there. How do you think it fares against a fighter size target. I don't know but its something to think about. Hornets carry the AMRAAM which oh by the way even the Tomcat Ds can't carry. Any modern fighter can track and launch against multiple targets. That is not something enjoyed exclusively by the Tomcat.

Range (ie gas). Something that I wish I had more of and something that the Tomcat has. However, in-flight refueling takes care of that issue. Tomcats tanked just as many times as Hornets in OIF although they weren't sucking as bad as we were when we showed up on the tanker. The SuperHornet further addresses the range and fuel issue. Somewhere in here was the squeak about the S-3s going away along with the Texaco in the sky. Not so. The SH carries more gas aloft for tanking than an S-3 can and oh by the way the SuperHornet could actually defend itself if it needed to. There is also another blurb in here about a Hornet C running a SuperHornet out of gas. I have to raise the big BS flag on that one. If that happened it was because the SuperHornets did something like fly up to Fallon from Lemoore, dogfight a Hornet C taking off from Fallon and then returned to Lemoore in one trip. You have to know the facts before making a conclusion. The Hornet C outfly a Hornet E? I dunno about that one either. There are certain things that a Hornet C can do better than the E in performance. This is more than taken care of though by an ever expanding flight envelope for the E. In fact, the latest legacy Hornet flight control software is incorporating lessons learned from the E to improve legacy flight performance. I would say they are about even with the E having the edge in high AOA flight. Bigger control surfaces do NOT equal better performance when those control surfaces have to move a bigger plane.

Payload: SuperHornet addresses this issue. I have never seen a Tomcat carry more than 4 bombs. I am not saying it can't but I think there are limits based on how the pallets can be configured. The SuperH can carry more than 4.

LANTIRN vs FLIR: A Lantirn will win hands down every time against the FLIR but as the ATFLIR comes on line that will not be the case. The ATFLIR is even better than the LANTIRN or the LIGHTNING II pods carried by the Air Farce.

For overall survivability, lethality and siuational awareness I think that you will find the most pilots who have flown both will pick the SuperHornet every time.

The Navy is sucking in the air department? I think just the opposite is true. I think you are going to find the Navy is coming to a new era in flight and airspace dominance. The JSF is going to be an awesome machine (despite the current plans for no internal gun). The SuperHornet is an awesome machine and the expandibility that is incorporated in it(can anyone say phased array, ATFLIR, AIM-9X and helmet mounted cueing coming to a SuperHornet near you very soon)will ensure that is is the cream of the crop for years to come. The replacement for the P-3 is going to provide capabilities that that community that are unheard of even today. The ASW role is now owned by the helo (in the carrier side of the house anyway).

Are there times when I wished I was flying a Tomcat? Yeah, when I think about trying a supersonic fly by of the boat at 100 feet. That is one of the most impressive things I have ever seen. Which one will I take to war? Right now? The legacy Hornet with a Tomcat to lase for me. When the SuperHornet is fully integrated into the fleet I am going to want to be in it.

My two cents. From a pilot perspective.

 

[Robert_F]

wow, thats cool....especially the SuperHornet is the plane I want to fly the most!!!!

 

[vegita1220]

Ooh finally a pilot's perspective. Thanks hornetdrvr.

I'm curious though, does the C version ALSO have no internal gun? I know the B has no room for it but I figure the C could take it...especially since its supposed to actually be larger than the A.

 

[Dupe]

I'm an AF dude, but I'd say go Hornets. Here's why: In a few short years, the Tomcats will exist only in museums and in Iranian hangers. All the pilots will be fed to other platforms. The worst thing that can happen to a pilot is to lose your community. All your contacts, all the people you know from other squadrons, and all the people you know on the assignment teams....gone.

 

[Ryoukai]

A question to the pilots...with this hubbub about the JSF having no gun, is that really that great an issue? I mean, in this age of very capable missiles how effective and important is a gun?

Edit:I've also wondered if having a second pair of eyes watching your back (RIO) is actually helpful or is the difference negligable.

"The Defense Department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid"

 

[vegita1220]

1)On the gun thing, I'm sure most pilots see it as a just in case thing...and what if you run out of missiles?

2)I think the RIO's eyes were a big factor in teh decision to go two-seater.