Could we (US) build the F-14 again in an emergency...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
wabpilot		#81	[-]
Posts: 2069 ( 1-Jun-2008 20:22:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	BenRoethig wrote: Am I reading this right, the Hornet series has a max supersonic load of 4 missiles? The same as the F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-35. Well, the F-14 and F-15 can carry a couple of more missiles and still go supersonic. No fighter is supersonic with an external load of bombs. The F-4J with 12 x Mk.82, 4 x AIM-7, 4 x AIM-9 and two supersonic tanks was barely able to cruise at Mach .86. With that load, we flight planned for 350 knots. Drop the bombs and Mach 2 was available for very short periods of time. Still, we would only use that speed to egress a hot target area. The F-14, when I flew her was faster, but we did not carry bombs. Bombed up, the F-14 was like the F-4J, slow but deadly.
Zen9		#82	[-]
Posts: 3579 ( 2-Jun-2008 00:37:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Wab speaks the truth on this one, the only 'bombers' I can think of that go supersonic with external stores would be variants of the Mig25 and possibly the Mig31. I suspect they have to be careful which explosives are used for such bombs. F22 and F35 will do this with internal carridge, though I think the F22 could do it with a few external stores at some penalty.
Gunnersmate04	Hustler	#83	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 170 ( 3-Jun-2008 15:42:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Did the Hustler carry any external ordinance or was it in a bomb bay...same with Valkyrie...also internal? Were these Mach 1 bombers? GUNNER
Obi Wan Russell		#84	[-]
Posts: 250 ( 3-Jun-2008 16:27:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Hustler carried it's bombload in what appeared to be a huge external drop tank beneath the fuselage. The lower half had the bombload and the upper half was a fuel tank. It could be jettisoned to lighten the aircraft if it had to evade enemy fighters. The 'external tank' was more streamlined than normal external bombs and helped with it's supersonic performance.
emc		#85	[-]
Posts: 3806 ( 3-Jun-2008 16:29:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gunnersmate04 wrote: Did the Hustler carry any external ordinance or was it in a bomb bay...same with Valkyrie...also internal? Were these Mach 1 bombers? GUNNER The Hustler carried its nuclear weapons in the huge weapons pod beneath the fuselage; it was later modified to have some under-wing racks (see http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58.html). I believe it was supersonic with its pod, but probably not with under-wing stores.
Nightwatch2		#86	[-]
Posts: 3625 ( 3-Jun-2008 18:10:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	just to kick this into a different direction - The real question is not whether we could, or should, restart an upgraded Tomcat line. The real question is whether we could put a real air dominance fighter onto our decks and put something like a multi-mission F-22 on our decks. From what I have read, the F-35 is the lower cost - higher numbers supplement to the F-22. But we don't have anything like that high-end part of the equation planned for the carrier force. discussions are already, evidently, starting on how to field an export variant to carefully selected allies. One of those allies should be the USN... Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
Gunnersmate04	Night	#87	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 171 ( 3-Jun-2008 18:35:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I lobbied that same question about a year or more ago; do we (the USN) have a viable similar type platform under devlopment like F-22 for the realalistic venue that force will be introduced to the enemy, Naval Air. Seemed everyone or most everyone seemed then to think F-35 was the best out there. I always assumed the best way to counter any potentil threat was to have the best of the best to meet said threat, such as F-14 was up until recently, as F-22 is now. But, with F-35 facing off with the Russian best, and others, is the F-35 really the "best" platform? Do we just sit on the Lightning 2 as "this is what we are going with"? And if so, maybe Tomcat is better in that role? GUNNER
Nightwatch2		#88	[-]
Posts: 3626 ( 3-Jun-2008 18:55:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gunnersmate04 wrote: I lobbied that same question about a year or more ago; do we (the USN) have a viable similar type platform under devlopment like F-22 for the realalistic venue that force will be introduced to the enemy, Naval Air. Seemed everyone or most everyone seemed then to think F-35 was the best out there. I always assumed the best way to counter any potentil threat was to have the best of the best to meet said threat, such as F-14 was up until recently, as F-22 is now. But, with F-35 facing off with the Russian best, and others, is the F-35 really the "best" platform? Do we just sit on the Lightning 2 as "this is what we are going with"? And if so, maybe Tomcat is better in that role? GUNNER I think the F-18E/F would do much better than the F-14 or any variant thereof for the reasons stated in the thread above. Wabpilot is pretty clear on that and I have no reason to argue with his assessment. I think the F-35, from what I know of it, will do better than the F-18. We have no high-end F-22 class aircraft in any phase of acquisition, development, view-graph engineering or whatever. I think that remains a glaring hole in our overall carrier-based aviation capabilities and one that could, someday, cost us lives, cost us battles, perhaps cost us a war. Clearly that is the case only against a handful of peer competitors who are not right now in that position. But in military capabilities, nothing ever stays static and we need to be looking out 20 -30 years to potential technology and threats in that era. Right now we are not and are working only on the next 10 - 20 years when such a capability will probably (hopefully) not be needed. So should we develop the F-22 (N) or go for a new long range program? I think we should snag the F-22 now for the simple reason that is currently fielded, is proving to be real kick-@$$ monster with no competitor, and by expanding the production line numbers drive unit costs down for both the USN and the USAF. There is plenty of space on the decks right now with our less than 2/3 airwing. We should use that deckspace and put some real airpower into the fleet. I have no illusions as to how hard that would be, how long it would take, how risky it would be from an engineering development aspect to carrier qualify a land-based aircraft (might not be able). But we should take a hard and serious look at that in my long-standing opinion. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
Obi Wan Russell		#89	[-]
Posts: 251 ( 3-Jun-2008 19:05:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Perhaps some studies into a 'son of Tomcat' are in order. To keep costs down, jettison stealth as this seems to just make the aircraft too expensive to buy in useful numbers. Make use of the best weapons and sensors available off the shelf, take on board the lessons about maintenance (less time in the hangar, more time in the air), which is one of the virtues of the SH. In the interests of commonality how about two of the Lightning's engines? Just throwing a few ideas out there. You can have the best of the best in terms of fighter tech, but if it costs more than the Raptor you won't get many (if at all). Fighters have five dimensions, Length, span, height, cost and politics. No prizes for guessing which is the most important...
Nightwatch2		#90	[-]
Posts: 3627 ( 3-Jun-2008 19:23:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	anything today without stealth is a waste of money and of the lives of the pilots. They'll be shot out of the air in round one by the air to air opposition. In a strike role, non-stealth will not survive against modern SAM and AAA integrated air defense systems. any modern combat aircraft intended to go in harm's way absolutely needs to have some stealth built into the aircraft. Even the SuperBug has stealth measures incorporated. The Tomcat was great in its day, but I will tell you from both a radar controller perspective and as a set of eyes in the back of a VF-126 aggressor - the Tomcat was easily tracked both visually and on radar. cost and politics will certainly factor heavily in program decisions, but required capabilities are the key. Stealth and survivability are key. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
Gernsback		#91	[-]
Posts: 244 ( 3-Jun-2008 20:23:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	We have no high-end F-22 class aircraft in any phase of acquisition, development, view-graph engineering or whatever. What about F/A-XX or is that just a "In the future we intend to have this pop into existence" program right now?
Nightwatch2		#92	[-]
Posts: 3628 ( 3-Jun-2008 21:04:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gernsback wrote: We have no high-end F-22 class aircraft in any phase of acquisition, development, view-graph engineering or whatever. What about F/A-XX or is that just a "In the future we intend to have this pop into existence" program right now? A UCAV? the couple page Naval Aviation dream sheet that I located after your question (thanks - I hadn't heard of that pipe dream) shows that as a SEAD, Strike supplement or sea control aircraft but the Hornet being replaced by a Block II variant. Oddly, one part says that by 2025 the CVW will be a mix of F-35's and UCAV's while the chart shows the F/A-18E/F Block II in 2030. not what I was thinking of. I don't think that package will be up to dueling with a force equipped with SuperFlanker variants using modern tactics and backed by a first rate IADS. but I also know the $$$ aren't there. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
seasick	Could we (US) build the SBD Dauntless in an emergency	#93	[-]
Posts: 4717 ( 4-Jun-2008 00:02:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Super Hornet Block II has already entered production. One of the major elements is the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. By 2030 the American tax payer will be working hard to pay taxes to the Federal Government so they can pay back interest and principle to the PRC for all the 20 and 30 year bonds W sold them to pay for Iraq. Fine I'll withdraw it. Last Edited By: seasick 18-Jun-2008 05:51:13. Edited 2 times.
Nightwatch2		#94	[-]
Posts: 3631 ( 4-Jun-2008 00:34:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	seasick wrote: The Super Hornet Block II has already entered production. One of the major elements is the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. By 2030 the American tax payer will be working hard to pay taxes to the Federal Government so they can pay back interest and principle to the PRC for all the 20 and 30 year bonds W sold them to pay for Iraq. Off-topic derangement!! get real..... Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
jlyons97	Off-topic derangement!!	#95	[-]
Posts: 1513 ( 4-Jun-2008 03:03:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No argument here.
taschoene		#96	[-]
Posts: 4244 ( 4-Jun-2008 04:56:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obi Wan Russell wrote: Perhaps some studies into a 'son of Tomcat' are in order. To keep costs down, jettison stealth as this seems to just make the aircraft too expensive to buy in useful numbers. Make use of the best weapons and sensors available off the shelf, take on board the lessons about maintenance (less time in the hangar, more time in the air), which is one of the virtues of the SH. In the interests of commonality how about two of the Lightning's engines? Just throwing a few ideas out there. You can have the best of the best in terms of fighter tech, but if it costs more than the Raptor you won't get many (if at all). Fighters have five dimensions, Length, span, height, cost and politics. No prizes for guessing which is the most important... I'm going to echo Nightwatch here: reducing stealth is not a credible option for a future fighter. Stealth is the primary feature that allows the fifth-generation F-22 to dominate air combat against fourth-generation aircraft like the Su-27 and even fourth and a half generation types like the Typhoon. Right now, the F-22 is racking up kill ratios around 100:1 against F-15s and F-16s, even when flying in disadvantaged scenarios. Stealth is the primary enabler to that superiority -- the Raptor can close in, shoot, and escape before the opposition even know it's there. Indeed, the Navy probably needs that level of dominance even more than the USAF, because it might find itself having to pit one squadron of carrier-borne fighters against a whole small national air force. (I say one squadron because I suspect a notional future air wing might include one squadron of hypothetical future fighters, two squadrons of F-35s and one squadron of high-endurance fighter-sized UCAVs.) Sadly, I just don't see any practical way for the USN to acquire such an aircraft--the budgets for the foreseeable future simply won't support another high-end fighter development of any sort. Sure, a future fighter would likely use the F-22's avionics and engines, but that was the plan for NATF as well and the budget isn't any better now than it was in the 1990s.
wabpilot		#97	[-]
Posts: 2070 ( 4-Jun-2008 05:33:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obi Wan Russell wrote: Perhaps some studies into a 'son of Tomcat' are in order. To keep costs down, jettison stealth as this seems to just make the aircraft too expensive to buy in useful numbers. Make use of the best weapons and sensors available off the shelf, take on board the lessons about maintenance (less time in the hangar, more time in the air), which is one of the virtues of the SH. In the interests of commonality how about two of the Lightning's engines? Just throwing a few ideas out there. You can have the best of the best in terms of fighter tech, but if it costs more than the Raptor you won't get many (if at all). Fighters have five dimensions, Length, span, height, cost and politics. No prizes for guessing which is the most important... I am not piling on, but no RO, is a non-starter. The Rafale has significantly reduced radar observability, so too the Typhoon and Gripen. The F-35 has significantly reduced radar observability. The math is simple. The USN figures the F-18F is 75% as capable as a navalized F-22 at half the cost. We figure some losses that would not be taken if we had a navalized F-22. That's harsh, but it's reality.
seasick	Could we (US) build the FJ Fury in an emergency	#98	[-]
Posts: 4719 ( 4-Jun-2008 05:50:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Whats the price difference between Bugs the F-22? Last Edited By: seasick 18-Jun-2008 05:52:44. Edited 1 times.
Gernsback		#99	[-]
Posts: 245 ( 4-Jun-2008 06:58:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	seasick wrote: Whats the price difference between Bugs the F-22? Current flyaway cost is 53-55 million versus 137 million.
pukalshik		#100	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 27 ( 4-Jun-2008 15:27:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	F-22 already performed "power projection" mission during the flight to Okinawa. (We would not take into account the bug in aircraft software that was in ignoring date change while passing 180 meridian) It looks like that USAF showed that they were able to solve the tasks of USN aviation.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Could we (US) build the F-14 again in an emergency...

Quick Reply