Why replace F-14 with F-18 fighter?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
seasick		#21	[-]
Posts: 4422 (19-Feb-2008 01:16:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Bender wrote: We need CV aircraft that can project power ashore into places like Iraq and Afganistan. That requires long range, with the F-18 does not have. The Navy's F/A-18 force can fly to Iraq and Afganistan. They already have. In air refueling, is common, in Iraq the F/A-18 can refuel from air force tankers as well as from S-3 and F/-18E with refueling tanks. Even the A-6E would most likely have to refuel in air if it carried a heavy bomb load into Afganistan.
Captain Cee J		#22	[-]
Posts: 1300 (19-Feb-2008 03:01:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The F-14 performs better in what way exactly? Better at shootin down massed waves of fast, high-flying Soviet missile-carrying bombers? Great. Why do we care today? Given the dramatic change in naval missions after 1990 and rapidly declining budgets the F/A-18E/F was absolutely the right way to go. The F-14 was a long-range air-superiority aircraft and interceptor. The F/A-18E/F is a medium-range strike fighter - far more in line with the Navy's current requirements than the Cold War missions for which the F-14 was concieved. Of course the Super Hornet isn't a better long-range interceptor than the F-14. It isn't supposed to be, nor is it required to be. I think your looking at "performance" as numbers on a spec sheet. The correct way to think of performance is how well does it do what we really need it to do? The Super Hornet is a much more affordable aircraft that performs a greater variety of missions at a much lower overall operating cost and with lower maintenance requirements and higher aircraft availability. All of that means you need fewer aircraft to perform the range of missions. Another savings. The F-35 is not a factor. It is primarily a tactical aircraft (attack) to replace the badly aging fleet of F/A-18C/D's, not F-14's adn A-6's. The F-35 and F/A-18E/F are very much intended to work side-by-side on carrier decks for the next few decades. Perhaps. However, in an era of increasing Russian military assertiveness and Chinese build up perhaps the end of the long range interceptor is premature. Everyone states how missiles have taken over the role, but missiles are fired or not. They cannot be sent up to intercept and the decision to shoot be held off. It just seems very shortsighted to me to do away with a capability we may well need again. As for why the F-14 was scrapped, Cheney was pissed at a suit from Grumman which caused him to choose the F-18 E/F over the F-14 D which would have been followed by an E. A stupid move motivated by ego. The new design Supercats would have had much better systems and a much easier maintenance program as well.
seasick		#23	[-]
Posts: 4427 (19-Feb-2008 04:37:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	However, in an era of increasing Russian military assertiveness and Chinese build up perhaps the end of the long range interceptor is premature. Not the end; However a Chinese and or Russian build up won't pose a threat like the one faced in the cold war. Long ranged cruise missiles and missiles taking a sub-orbital trajectory are likely going to be the future threats. The F/A-18E/F can deal with the cruise missiles, and missiles like the SM-3 are the only defense against sub orbital missiles. As for why the F-14 was scrapped, Cheney was pissed at a suit from Grumman which caused him to choose the F-18 E/F over the F-14 D which would have been followed by an E. A stupid move motivated by ego. The new design Supercats would have had much better systems and a much easier maintenance program as well. That's typical for Cheney, some people have blinders on when it comes to him. A version more advanced than the F-14D would have been needed. It would have been possible but maybe not in the numbers needed.
Captain Cee J		#24	[-]
Posts: 1301 (19-Feb-2008 05:04:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Not the end; However a Chinese and or Russian build up won't pose a threat like the one faced in the cold war. Long ranged cruise missiles and missiles taking a sub-orbital trajectory are likely going to be the future threats. The F/A-18E/F can deal with the cruise missiles, and missiles like the SM-3 are the only defense against sub orbital missiles. True to degree. However, as we see from the latest flyover of the USS Nimitz, air threats are not passe. A Bear is a slow moving this. The Russians do have far faster aircraft in inventory.
Dave Bender	Cost Information	#25	[-]
Posts: 6172 (19-Feb-2008 16:32:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This data is not gospel but it is probably in the ballpark. http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c223.htm Total program cost for the F-18E/F = $84 million each (1999 dollars). Total intended purchase = 548 aircraft. F-18E R&D has not been paid for as of 1990 so those costs matter if the F-18E is procured ILO the remanufactured F-14D. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm F-14D (remanufactured from F-14A) cost $65 million each (1991 dollars). 12 aircraft for $780 million. F14D R&D has already been paid for by 1990 so those costs no longer matter. 6 x F-14As were remanufactured into F-14Ds in 1990. The 1991 contract was cancelled, ending the program. Most weapons cost considerably less when they enter mass production. Therefore I am going to assume that a mass produced F-14D would cost about $25 to $30 million less per aircraft then the mass produced F-18E. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0119.shtml F-18 requires 10-15 maintenance hours per flight hour. F-14 requires 40 to 60 maintenance hours per flight hour. Assumptions (i.e. my best wild guess). F-18E requires 12.5 maintenance hours per flight hour (average of estimates). F-14D requires 40 maintenance hours per flight hour (F-14D is better in this regard then earlier F-14A). F-14D requires 27.5 more maintenance hours per flight hour then the F-18E. 1 maintenance man hour costs $100. (A lot more then I got paid in the navy! However there are crew training and support costs.) F-18E costs $25 million more to purchase then a F-14D. $25 million / $2,750 (additional cost per flight hour) = 9,090. The break even point for the F-18E and remanufactured F-14D is about 9,000 flight hours. The entire service life of the aircraft and then some. Therefore I must conclude that a remanufactured F-14D costs no more per aircraft then a new production F-18E, even after taking maintenance costs into account. Additionally the F-14D costs $25 million less per aircraft up front and can be in service over 5 years earlier then the F-18E. BTW, I don't buy the story that Dick Cheney cancelled the F-14 because Grumman ticked him off. That man is very analytical in his actions. His reasons for cancelling the F-14 program were not based on emotion. As with the intelligence estimates concerning Iraq in 2002, the aircraft cost estimates for the F-14 and F-18 were probably inaccurate in 1990. Decisions based on faulty information are bound to be less then perfect. Only in LettersTime do we get the benefit of hindsight.
drunknsubmrnr		#26	[-]
Posts: 1253 (19-Feb-2008 17:12:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Total program cost for the F-18E/F = $84 million each (1999 dollars). Total intended purchase = 548 aircraft. F-18E R&D has not been paid for as of 1990 so those costs matter if the F-18E is procured ILO the remanufactured F-14D." i) Lets set the comparison at 1999 dollars then. They're worth ~20% more than 1991 dollars, due to compounded inflation between those years. ii) Program cost includes R&D. "F-14D (remanufactured from F-14A) cost $65 million each (1991 dollars). " The CPI inflation index makes that $83 million each in FY 99 dollars. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi "Most weapons cost considerably less when they enter mass production. Therefore I am going to assume that a mass produced F-14D would cost about $25 to $30 million less per aircraft then the mass produced F-18E. " The highest build rate projected was for 60 aircraft per year, which is far below the limit where efficiencies of scale kick in. The cost would remain at ~$83 million per airframe. "1 maintenance man hour costs $100. (A lot more then I got paid in the navy! However there are crew training and support costs.)" You're looking at closer to $1000/hr. Those tools cost a LOT. "F-18E costs $25 million more to purchase then a F-14D." F-18E costs $1 million more to purchase than an F-14D(R). For that $1 million, you get to use all PGM's as well as AMRAAM. The F-14D can't handle JDAM, JSOW etc. Kevin
Dave Bender	F-14D can't handle JDAM, JSOW etc	#27	[-]
Posts: 6176 (19-Feb-2008 17:33:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Because they did not exist in 1990. Newer weapons would be added to the F-14D at the same time they were added to the F-15E.
drunknsubmrnr		#28	[-]
Posts: 1255 (19-Feb-2008 17:34:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I see. Where is that integration cost in your estimates? Kevin
seasick		#29	[-]
Posts: 4428 (20-Feb-2008 01:38:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The whole thing about the F-14 is really water under the bridge. Since the F-14 fighters out in the desert storage have been destroyed, and Northhrop-Grumman is busy building its portion of the F/A-18E/F. The only problem I see with the Super Hornet is that it is not a great interceptor. On the other hand the E and F versions are very good strike platforms, and fighters. There isn't money for an aircraft like the F-14 now. The next administration will hopefully scale back the balistic missile defense and not skimp on Iraq/Afganistan and other current problems.
McAvoy		#30	[-]
Posts: 18 (20-Feb-2008 09:21:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	On my last cruise, we were not averaging 10 or 12.5 man hours per flight hour. We had a single plane that averaged around that, the rest was much higher than that. One of them almos broke the 100 man hour/1 flight hour. Super Hornets are incredibly unreliable in terms of their durability. Yes, they are far easier to fix than a Tomcat, but they break so much more often. I can remove and replace a part within a few hours (if I am lucky to get the clamp on the first time), and then change it again within a few months with multiple part removals in between for non related problems. Whereas I can remove and replace a part within a a day or two (if I am lucky) on a Tomcat and not worry about it for a full year or more. Don't get me started on the whole 'IETMs is the Bible and you must bow before it' bullshit.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Why replace F-14 with F-18 fighter?

Quick Reply