WT Forums

This is an old argument, but one I feel is worth repeating. The following is a supplement from 1991.

FUTURE OF NAVAL AVIATION -- HON.RANDY`DUKE'CUNNINGHAM (Extension of Remarks - May 07, 1991)

[Page: E832]

---

HON.RANDY`DUKE'CUNNINGHAM

in the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1991


Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a letter which has been sent to the naval institute's magazine, Proceedings. Lt. Steven E. Harfst, USNR, of Fighter Squadron 111 at NAS Miramar has written a timely and thought-provoking article on the future of naval aviation.

Lieutenant Harfst's article was accompanied by a letter signed by 58 Navy pilots. These aviator feel strongly enough about naval aviation to get involved in the process, and I commend them for their interest and efforts.

Naval aviation played a critical role in the war in the Persian Gulf, but we could conceivably lose that edge unless we move rapidly and decisively to beef up naval aviation. In this former naval aviator's mind, the need for the F-14D is clear. While other aircraft can and should be used in different roles, the F-14D is central to naval aviation. As a superior all-weather, night, medium attack and long-range air-to air fighter, it is the right plane for the mission.

Mr. Speaker, the F-14D is an airplane which can fly today. The taxpayers have already paid for much of the R & D costs. If we are truly concerned about preserving the United States' overwhelming superiority in this field, then I hope my colleagues will carefully review this article.

The letter follows:
The recent decision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (O.S.D.) to cancel the F-14D program in favor of an updated version of the F/A-18 has caused a great deal of concern within the Navy's fighter community.

It has been recognized for some time that a replacement is needed for the aging A-6 Intruder. The Persian Gulf war has shown the importance of the medium attack role for the Battle Group Commander as well as highlighting the need for a precision weapons delivery capability in the Carrier Air Wing.

With the cancellation of the A-12 program and the apparent massive reduction of the F-14D Super Tomcat program, the war fighting capability of the Carrier Air Wing is in jeopardy. By opposing the Pentagon and reinstating fiscal year 1991 funding for the F-14D, Congress has taken a step in the right direction. Yet serious, practical decisions need to be dedicated to the needs of the Carrier Air Wing as it approaches the 21st century.

The proposal by the O.S.D. for an all F/A-18E/F air wing is not the answer to the problems of power projection in the future. The F/A-18 was originally envisioned as the low end of a highcost-lowcost mix of aircraft on the carrier, a mix that has proved to be not only cost effective but tactically effective as well. However, the Hornet will never be an adequate replacement for either the A-6 or the F-14, and falls considerably short of the mark as a replacement for both.

Until a long term, cost effective alternative to the A-12 can be found, and until the extent of the Navy's involvement in the ATF program is decided upon, relying on a short range attack aircraft with a limited air-to-air capability cannot be the answer. The best hope of the Carrier Air Wing of the future exists today in the form of the F-14D Super Tomcat performing the all-weather, night, medium attack and long range air-to-air figher mission.

By exploiting the full air-to-ground potential of the Super Tomcat, the Navy would have a long range, all-weather strike-figher with capabilities comparable to those of the F-15E Strike Eagle. HARM, Harpoon and the ability to carry a multitude of existing and new generation air-to-ground weapons is already a reality in the F-14D. With the current strength and the future growth potential of the F-14D we have the best solution to the problems of power projection into the 21st century without giving up any of its proven air-to-air capabilities.

Apparenty there are forces at work in Washington D.C. which are against any future for the F-14. The problem should not be the choice of one aircraft over another, but the proper mix of aircraft that allows superiority to be maintained in every tactical arena. The Hornet, or any other single aircraft, will never meet all the requirements of the Carrier Air Wing. The F-14D Super Tomcat is more capable than the proposed F/A-18E/F, is here now, and should be utilized to its full potential.

The F/A-18E/F will never match the air-to-air capabilities of the Super Tomcat. Even with the addition of the developing AMRAAM technology, the limitations of the Hornet's weapons system cannot match the performance that the Tomcat possesses today with its Phoenix missiles and powerful, large aperture radar. While the Tomcat will carry AMRAAM when it becomes available, the Hornet will never carry the Phoenix missile and is still waiting for a multi-shot capability.

The key to success in aerial combat is the ability to locate and prosecute the enemy in a heavy electronic counter-measues (ECM)/stealth environment while gaining the first shot, first kill advantage. The Super Tomcat's powerful APG-71 radar coupled with its advanced weapons control system gives it this capability.

It is true that the F-14 has a large radar cross-section, but this is not a major tactical disadvantage. The radar cross-section of the F-14d is roughly equivalent to the F-15E which has had proven combat success in the Persian Gulf. While it would be difficult to make the Tomcat smaller, it can benefit from current stealth technology to reduce its radar cross-section.

A fighter aircraft in the interceptor role must have the ability to detect aircraft employing stealth technology. This ability is crucial and is directly related to a given radar's power-aperture product. The Hornet's low power-aperture product, a limitation caused by its small radome, results in short detection ranges and a weak capability against stealth targets.

In contrast, the F-14D possesses a robust counter-stealth capability due to its large aperture, high power out radar. The Tomcat's radar far exceeds that of the Hornet in both passive and active detection ranges. The Tomcat will always have the first-shot advantage over the Hornet. The long range, multi-shot, first shot capability is one that the Carrier Battle Group Commander cannot do without.

Long wave infrared search and track is a proven counter-stealth capability and the IRST system currently on the F-14D is a quantum leap over any other passive detection system in the world. The ability to passively detect, track and destroy enemy aircraft will be a crucial advantage in future aerial combat. Aircraft employing low observable/stealth technology cannot hide from the proven combination of the IRST and the APG-71 radar. Only the F-14D Super Tomcat can accomplish this today!

The combination of the new F-14D powerplant and the advantages of variable geometry wingsweep, gives the Super Tomcat the advantage in maneuverability. The variable engine inlets in the F-14 give it the speed necessary for survival in combat. The size of the F-14 engine nacelle's will allow it to carry new generation engines, such as those designed for the ATF, giving it a `super cruise' capability.

Fighter and attack pilots have a saying that `Speed is life'. The inability of an aircraft to detach from an engagement or to egress from a target area because of a speed disadvantage will be fatal. The fixed engine inlets of the Hornet are a liability by limiting its ability to achieve those speeds necessary for survival. The variable engine inlets of the F-14 allows the flexibility to achieve higher airspeeds and increase survivability.

Given similar loadouts, the Tomcat enjoys an approximate 200 knot advantage in either a high speed ingress or egress to or from a target area. This is a recognized liability for the Hornet and is directly related to aircrew survivability. Clearly the Hornet 2000 would be seriously underpowered in many situations.

The Hornet has an acknowledged range problem. External fuel tanks can help to alleviate this problem, but they severely degrade many of the Hornet's tactical advantages. The F/A-18 cruise configuration (two wing tanks plus a centerline tank) results in a radically different aircraft in terms of maneuvering capabilities compared to a `clean' Hornet. In this configuration, the Hornet's combat range is still extremely limited, the amount of ordnance, it can carry is drastically reduced, its air-to-air capabilities are extremely limited and it still requires extensive tanker support. Long combat range and the ability to take bombs across the beach is crucial to the Battle Group Commander.

The necessity to plan around the short range limitation of the Hornet is a hindrance to the rest of the battle group by monopolizing airwing tanking assets and often requiring the coordination of non-organic tanking assets as well. The F-14D represents over twice the combat range capability and possesses significant advantages in on-station time compared to the Hornet, and when external tanks are carried by the Tomcat, they do not degrade its ordnance loadout.

The F-14 is the only air wing asset capable of carrying four two-thousand pound bombs, along with its air-to-air armament, while maintaining its ability to recover back aboard the carrier without expending its ordnance. The Hornet cannot even taxi with that kind of ordnance load. Once airborne, the Tomcat can carry its heavier payload twice as far, stay longer and retire faster than the Hornet.

The size of the F-14 also equates to growth potential. Options exist to increase internal fuel carriage by 20%. The relatively small size of the Hornet has lead some to believe that an Air Wing Commander can put more of them on the deck of his carrier. This is not necessarily true. Because of its landing gear design, much of the Tomcat can be placed over the water when it is parked along the deck edge of the carrier.

As evident during recent testimony on Capitol Hill, the Hornet requires major modifications including fuselage plugs and larger wings to perform the mission it will be tasked with. In reality, this will result in a completely new, unproven, untested aircraft requiring extensive flight testing before it will become operational.

The fleet needs an aircraft with advanced technology and capabilities today; not in the undetermined future. A simpler and far more cost effective alternative would be minor changes in the existing, proven and tested F-14D. Software developments adding the air-to-ground capability to the F-14D are already paid for and are due for introduction in 1993 Why throw away a proven, carrier capable platform which can meet the fighter and medium attack requirements well into the 21st century?

It is not only unreasonable National Strategy to discontinue the F-14, a move which would severely impact our industrial base, but unsound policy to forego the present use and future development of the F-14D and await the development of a new aircraft. Will the ATF contract winner really be able to carrierize the F-22/23? How long will we have to wait? And while we wait, how many antiquated aircraft will we be forced into combat with in the interim?

Surely the cost of research and development for the F/A-18E/F will far exceed that needed for upgrades to the F-14D that are already available. Why should we be forced to await the arrival of the proposed F/A-18E/F when we could be training and fighting with the very technology (the F-14D) that the new Hornet is projected to provide?

It is my sincere belief that the best, most sensible course of action is to continue to produce and develop advanced versions of the F-14, while continuing to exploit the relative advantages a mix of different aircraft affords. An intelligent mix of F-14 variants covering the medium all-weather/night attack role and the all-weather fighter role alongside a compliment of less expensive F/A-18 aircraft to cover the traditional day-attack and point defense fighter roles is the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. It is irrational to wait for the introduction of an aircraft which could be 50% more expensive and possess less capabilities than the F-14D. The Super Tomcat is here today, not a proposal on a design sheet. It is my hope that every consideration will be given to continuing the F-14D program.

END



If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

The argument is very foward thinking for 1991.........and 12 years later has proven to hit the mark.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Too bad they ignored the plea.

Idiot's.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

I have talked to 3 superhornet guys in the past few months (all at Kirtland AFB - they use that place as a stopping point when going cross country). 1 was a former hornet driver and he likes the superhornet. 2 were tomcat guys. One of them swore by the new plane - thinks it is great and thinks he can kill bad guys better in it. The other guy thought the exact opposite. He actually said he thinks he could dominate the skies in a tomcatD for the next 20 years even with the F22 coming out. He said although the F18E/F is way more fun to fly he does not feel it is as good as the f14.

I think this is one of those things that will never be solved. Even the guys who fly them disagree...(granted, I have only talked to 3 guys)...

Thanx for the observations luke.

Do you know if the Tomcat driver that liked them came from an F-14D or an A?

I can see that having a big impact on a guy's opinion.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Aren't all the F-14A's gone? Weren't they all converted to F-14B's or F-14D's?

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -General George Patton

Yeah, over the past debates dealing with this subject I actually posted this as a link but I don't think anyone paid attention to it.
Cunnigham is man whom I have alot of admiration for.

I wonder what he would say 12 years later, a change of tune maybe...?





Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 19 2003 5:01 PM

your right TT, this Is an old argument.
this is from a guy who transitioned from F-14 to Hornets after 1800 hours in the F-14:( the << >> refer to previouse questions that he is responding to)

"<<<"...why not switch to new airframes or just keep that particular lot active?">>>

It's not just the wear and tear on an airframe. Besides, Tomcats were made at a rate of about 12 a year in the final days. And most of the final 'Ds were just remanufactured 'As. More importantly, because just as technology advances the capabilities of combat systems, it also advances in areas like reliability and maintainability. Tomcats represent the state-of-the-art for maintenance features from about 1968 or so, when they were designed. Since then, we've made vast improvements in how "fixable" and reliable we make our jets. That design stuff isn't something you bolt on, it has to be put in place when pencil goes to paper. Super Hornets represent late 1990s R&M technology. They're easier to fix, and don't break as often. I am sure the JSF will be even better.

<<<"And what about the plans for a Tomcat-21, which would have retained a lot of if not all of the current F-14s strengths and features but in a newer, up-to-date technology?">>>

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. In the end, analysts decided the Tomcat 21 retained too much old design technology, and although it had nice features, would be too expensive over the life cycle to support effectively. I liked the concept, but realized that it was a re-hash of a 30 year old design.

<<<"but what about things like range (APG-71 is 80 miles right?) and the ability to track 24 targets at once and fire on 6 with the Phoenix?">>>

There's more to the problem than max detection range. The Tomcat radars were optimized for countering mass formations of anti-ship bombers masked by heavy jamming. In that scenario, it's hard to beat the Tomcat's radar/missile combo. But that threat is gone, or at least dramatically reduced. Other radars in our other fighters are optimized for missions more in line with today's threat environment. I like what the APG-73/AMRAAM combo provides me right now.

<<<"I just wonder if things like loiter time and range and the weapon systems and speed of the F-14 were such good points and strengths of the Tomcat, and if they planned to retire it anyway, why they couldn't either make a new fighter that retained those things...">>>

Yeah, me too. But all airplanes are a compromise. Phantom guys felt the Tomcat was too slow and too hard to land on the boat - and too big (an easy tally-ho in a fight). But it turned tighter than a Phantom, and had longer loiter time and a much better weapons system.

The Super Hornet isn't as fast, but it turns a lot better. From what I and the three other ex-F-14 guys in my squadron have seen, it has about the same legs as an F-14, when flown properly. Life is a compromise - the Super Hornet's strengths and weaknesses are different than the F-14s or the F-4s. That's life. I'd love a plane with no weaknesses and all the above strengths - they don't make that plane, and if they did the Navy couldn't afford it. (There was once talk of an "F-22N," a swing-wing, two seat F-22 derivative. It made me drool to think of it...it was too expensive, and never made it past a couple design proposals).

<<<"Because, you have to admit, in terms of ability and function and even practicality, going from a Tomcat to a Hornet is sort of a downgrade...">>>

No, I don't have to admit that, because it isn't true. I see a lot of press blab about the Super Hornet's specs... but they're usually FA-18C specs, not E/F. Very different jet, the E/F. Roughly 30% bigger. Easier to fly. Even greater high AoA capability. Easier to maintain. Way more gas than a C. Way more weapons capacity and bring-back than a C. More weapons pylons than a Tomcat. Longer legs than a C. Better avionics, displays and integration. More survivable. Better SA to the aircrew. Kick-ass visual fighter. Great bomber. The FA-18F is a more "practical" strike fighter for our flight decks than a Tomcat. IT does recce (SHARP pod), it does strike, it does a/a, it does FAC-A, just as a Tomcat does. If I had to go to war tomorrow, I'd rather go in a decked-out FA-18F than a Tomcat. No joke."



"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The Super Hornet will haul less, be able to trap abord a carrier with less, and not have the range of the "D" Tomcat.

The Navy with its new "littoral" doctrine is putting an emphasis of medium strike capability being tasked to Tomohawk cruise missiles, and the Super Hornet being tasked with targets within its range.

I do not feel comfortable with that, the 1990's proved that cruise missiles are not a substitute for precesion bombing, and the situation in Afgahnistan is proving the need for medium strike capability that even the Super Hornet will lack............



If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Tweaker, what about that pilot and his 3 exF14 pilot friends saying that if flown properly the superhornet has the same legs as the tomcat?? Is he full of it? I would tend not to think so...

I don't know where that information came from, so I cannot qualify it. If he has flown both aircraft than he knows what he is talking about. He did not verify if he came from the A TF-30 powered 14, or B,D F-110 powered variat........That would make a big difference.

I do know this.........Every pilot I have talked to, this includes aviators and RIO's from Oceana, and Pax River tell me that the 18E/F does not have the range that the 14D does with a max ordanace loadout......It makes since to me since the D holds more fuel, and has VG wings, it has an obvious advantage in that capacity. Also, every bit of literature I have read on the subject (tons) stipulates the same thing. Sure you can convert a 18E/F into a flying gas station with extra external tanks and fly it low and slow, but it degrades its ability as a strike aircraft and an air to air fighter.

I am no longer in the Naval Aviation cadre, so there are some things I do not know, so I could be wrong, but I have yet to see evidence that I am.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Also another side note...........That pilot also neglects to validate the APG-71 with the updated software, which would give it ground mapping capability. He hits the mark from a maintence stanpoint, and being envolved in that arena I can back that up.

The 14D with the updated strike software and AMRAAM software would give it every bit the capabilities as the F-15E, and then some. Now let me ask you all this, does the 18E/F match the 15E as a strike aircraft? Then why would it be an improvement over the 14D?

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 20 2003 2:56 PM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 20 2003 2:57 PM

"Tweaker, what about that pilot and his 3 exF14 pilot friends saying that if flown properly the superhornet has the same legs as the tomcat?? Is he full of it? I would tend not to think so..."

What does "flown properly" mean though?

At idle?

And just for the record, the F-14D has 40% more range than the A does.

And "80 mile range" for the APG-71? The range of the APG-71 is 370Km, or 740Km with two linked Tomcat D's using data sharing.
The APG-73 is a much smaller radar with a fraction of the power output and a much smaller radome, the two systems aren't even comparable.

BTW, the APG-71 as presently configured has full ISARS ground mapping capability.

I can link all of this, as i just did for another site.

BTW- Iran just bought 18 Backfires, so to say that there is no stand off bomber threat is disingenuous, to say the least. India is buying more in the next few months as well.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14d/f14d.htm

The biggest change to the F-14D was the introduction of the AN/APG-71 radar, made by Hughes. This is a development of the AN/APG-70 used in the F-15E and so shares many similar features. Whereas the AWG-9 of the F-14A and B is an analogue unit the AN/APG-71 is fully digital. Its 5kWpower output gives it an extremely long range, in an ideal situation the unit is able to track targets up to 740km away, but the F-14's antenna design limits this range to 370km. Use of datalinked data allows two or more F-14D's to operate the system at its maximum range. Due to the radar's increased range and better target descrimination the F-14D is able to launch its AIM-54 missiles from over 100 miles away. The digital microprocessors of the system allow it to process data at six times the speed of the AWG-9 and using information from the radar prioritise the most threatening targets.
The AN/APG-71 features high and low rates of pulse repetition. High PRF is used for long range search while low PRF enables ground mapping and single target tracking. Like most modern radars the AN/APG-71 probably incorporates NCRT (Non-Cooperative Recognition Technology) using the raw radar return to help identify the type of aircraft targeted. As with the radar's ability to fuse data from other sensors, including the IRST, TCS and ECM systems, this is a very sensitive technology

http://www.raytheon.com/products/awg9_apg71/

The AN/AWG-9 and AN/APG-71 weapon control systems detect very small, low-flying targets and enable long-range and multiple target detection.


The AWG-9 allows the U.S. Navy's F-14 Tomcat to detect and track up to 24 targets and selectively attack any six of them simultaneously in any weather and at ranges exceeding 110 nautical miles. The AWG-9's pulse Doppler radar provides the ability to detect small, low-flying targets and also gives the system long-range and multiple target detection and tracking capabilities. The firepower for the long-range capability is supplied by the AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.

The APG-71 is designed specifically for the F-14D Super Tomcat. It retains the vital features of the AWG-9, but upgrades processing speed, flexibility, and signal/data processor capacity.

80nautical miles- LOL.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

as far as I know, the dead horse is still dead.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

A dead horse..........Lets hope that this stupid decesion does not put our sailors, aviators, and flight officers in harms way because the politicians wanted a quick "knee jerk" reaction type cost saving measure to save face.

This argument will not die because the decesion never made, and still doesn't make any sense. U.S. Naval Aviation has always been on the cutting edge since the days of the F-6F Hellcat, now we are getting a second rate airplane that got chosen by default with no fly-off. Better technology existed in 1991 and was bought and paid for. The fact it wasn't utilized and we are getting what amounts to a serious performance compromise for more money is insane.....And it is 2003.

All I can say is the F-35 cannot be proccured fast enough, and the 600 ship Navy that the Honorable John F. Lehman built into the most powerfull fighting force in world history has been neglected long enough. Lives or our fighting men and women, and valuable CVBG assets are at stake, and more vulnerable than at anytime since the battle of Midway.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Really the biggest issue is that our carriers are deploying with air wings in the low 50's in numbers, and that the USMC has had to commit the majority of it's FA-18 fleet to keep the numbers at even that level.

Now i am not going to say the F-18E blows, because that is more than adequate as a bomb truck with inflight refueling.

The EF-18G Growler should be an excellent aircraft based on what you can read about it, and i'm sure the Super Hornet will be equally fine as a carrier based tanker carrying buddy packs.

The F-18F on the other hand- if it's published performance figures are correct- is terribly underpowered, lacks the on station loiter capability of the F-14D, lacks the long range radar of the F-14D, and the long range capability and multiple target engagement capability of the Phoenix C.

The Superhornet doesn't even have an IRST- it is still in development, and they are still using the APG-73 radar from the F-18C.
They also have no jammer at this time. All of that is going to have to be added later for more money, and they will gain more wieght in the process.
The F model seems that it could really use about 10,000 more pounds of thrust.

Of course this is all just my opinion.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

I will say the SuperHornet sucks, because it does.........It is the wrong plane at the wrong time, for the wrong job. I am going to write my congressman and propose getting old A-4's out of mothballs and convert them into a "SuperSkyHawk" variant.........Save cash, makes about as much sense, and its export friendly.



If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

yup! the Hornets have always been underpowered by a lot, 2 plants in a small frame, just really aint room in that design for 2 motors and a great deal of fuel(lets not forget the YF-17 Hornet design was FORCED on the Navy or they would have had to take a "navelised" F-16)The F-14 was the greatest interceptor ever,period, land or sea based. But it has eaten itself out of house and home as far as the Navy is concerned. The long range engagement capabilities of F-14 are unmatched anywhere in the world. BUT it never detered an attack by Soviet forces on a CVBG, the Soviets wouldent have given a ratz hind end about F-14/Phoenix if they had wanted to start a war. IRSTs and Jammers are definately important (specially since the Navy "dont do pods")and I guess they'll get there eventually ( as far as i know the ASPJ never got to full deployment, just kept swapping them from plane to plane)but I'm pretty sure we aint gonna build no more F-14s.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Well we could not retire the few we have left until the JSF is in production.

The F-18E/F is LAST generation technology, when the Navy will have available NEXT generation technology in 2008.

They shouldn't be buying anything, they should be nursing the Tomcat and Hornet A/C for five more years and spend all of that money on a standardized carrier air wing of 64 JSF's.
THEN they'd really have something, and they could mass retire all the old stuff as they cranked out JSF's at a very economical rate.

Simply put the more you build and the faster you build them the cheaper they will be.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

I wouldent dissagree with any of that Snipe, but the Navy wasnt getting any guarantees about JSF when they decided on SH. The Navy was desparate for something ANYTHING with some degree of stealth(the SH is stealthier than Eurofighter or Rafale) and an upgraded Hornet was all they thought they could resonably get lifecycle wise.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Stealth was not the compelling factor in that decesion. Limited stealth capability is not a tremendous advantage when your advesary has impressive IRST gear on his SU-27.

You say that the Soviets would not have been concerned about the AWG-9/APG-71 Phoenix capability of the F-14? I don't think so, in fact they feared that 120 miles+ deathdot that the 14 could place on their forehead through an intense ECM enviornment.

It was a cost saving measure plain and simple, and not a very foward thinking one.......After the A-12 debacle, the Navy was force fed an aircraft they didn't want.

I reccommend the book "Command of the Seas" By John F. Lehman.
He recently updated it with a 2001 supplement.
Read it and then see if you want to stick by the same argument concerning the direction of maratime air superiority/power projection.

I am not saying the F-14D would rule the world for the next 20 years, what I am saying is its better than its being replaced with.


If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 21 2003 3:55 PM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 21 2003 3:57 PM

I recomend you take a reality check bud. This argument was over YEARS ago.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

WTF is that about?

The argument is far from over, in fact as a taxpayer you should be as upset as I am. Maybe you can't relate to the fact that men and women that serve in our great Navy put enough on the line as it is, to be put in greater risk because of a cost saving measure. If you can't debate these points, than stay out of it. If all you can do is validate one dumb decesion by another dumb remark (ie) its a dead horse, then you contribute nothing to this discussion. I have yet to see you disprove anything that I have said. Tell me you can do better................

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The argument is far from over<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

what part isnt over? F-14 dead, Superhornet alive. Where's the argument to be had? What can be done ? The die is cast.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.