WT Forums

I figured since the F-18E/F is such a good replacement for the F-14D...........Why not have it replace the F-15C/E. All F-16's and the A-10. I mean with the F-18E/F why do we need the F-22 or JSF?

We can use it for everything, even phase out the B-52's and KC-135's once and for all..........Just need some comformal fuel tanks.

We could also proccure a AWACS F-18E/F variant............

The F/A-18E/F.........America's answer to all future threats, whether they be air, land or sea.........Kinda like one of those one size fits all ballcaps.

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 01:50 AM

There is an IDIOT Navy pilot(Ex F-14A no less) in proceedings who proposed EXACTLY that.

That the USAF should replace the F-15C not with F-22, but with the F-18F, the F-15E with the F-18E, and the F-16 with get this.. the USMC VSTOL JSF!!!

He felt the USAF should have to commit it's JSF squadrons to USN service aboard carriers to make up for the USN's own airframe shortfall, just like the UK does.

Your point here to me is well taken Tomcat.
The USAF utterly SCOFFS at the Super Bug as a potential replacement for ANY USAF platform, and with damned good reason.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jan 22 2003 01:52 AM

All the navy fighters are too heavy for the amount of thrust they have. Cutting all the carrier essential stuff would GREATLY reduce the weight - extending range, payload, and maneuverability. But that would cost a lot and Air Force leadership seems to have a bit more ability to plan for the future and kiss up to the politicians than navy leaders do. That is why we have the F22 and the Navy does not. That is why I have already heard mention of the Navy thinking of cutting the numbers of JSF. We have seperate forces for a reason and the air force has nothing to do but lose TONS of capability by flying around a bunch of fighters with carrier capability. The Navy already is totally dependent on Air Force tankers to get the job done (gulf war, Kosovo, Afghanistan) we do not need to make them totally dependent on air force fighters as well....

....so, while the point you seem to be making is that the superhornet really is crappy because the air force does not want it just is not telling the whole truth. The air force is busy doing its own thing and does not want to pick up and do the navy's job for them.

In conclusion....right now, whether a good or bad plane for battle, the F18E/F is part of the Navy and they need to figure out how to fight with it....not just bitch and whine and propose that the USAF help out just because we have not been slowly taking apart our aviation capabilities over the last 20 years.

Oh man, I couldn't resist this one. The F/A-18, first of all, is a wonderful interceptor and mutli-role aircraft. It is also built for carrier ops, and although it has been used for air-to-ground missions it is still a carrier-based fighter. It is also less maneuverable than the F-16. As far as the F-15 is concerned... its already going to be replaced by the F-22, the best fighter in the world.... why in the heck would we want to put Superhornets in over F-22s? The F-22 is much more stealthy and has the most modern avionics.

The F/A-18E/F obviously can't perform CAS like the A-10 can... its too fast and lightly armored compared to the hog. The superhornet is right where it should be, lined up to replace the tomcat. The F-16 is eventually going to be phased out by the F-35 anyway... we don't need any superhornets AIM HIGH!

"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 22 2003 09:24 AM

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 22 2003 09:25 AM

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 22 2003 09:27 AM

"In conclusion....right now, whether a good or bad plane for battle, the F18E/F is part of the Navy and they need to figure out how to fight with it....not just bitch and whine and propose that the USAF help out just because we have not been slowly taking apart our aviation capabilities over the last 20 years."

Luke, i agree with you 100%. The USAF should not be penalized for the stupidity of USN budget planners.

Buzz...

"The F/A-18, first of all, is a wonderful interceptor and mutli-role aircraft."

Wonderful interceptor? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?????
Would it be the low powered radar, lack of IRST to overcome jamming, or terrible supersonic performance of the F-18F that leads you to these conclusion? Or is it something else

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

You know, Snipe? He's a newbie. Take it easy on him.

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

I'm sorry, i was trying to be humurously sarcastic.

If i came off as just being a jerk i appologize, that was not my intent.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

LETS FACE IT,THE F-4 AND THE A-7 WERE FLUKES!THEY BOTH SERVED WELL IN THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES
GREAT PLANES THAT EVER ONE COULD USE
BUT NOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND ITS BACK TO GOOD OLE KICK BACKS,POLITICS,AND WHOEVER IS KISSING WHO'S ASS ON ANY GIVEN DAY!
THE USAF HAD A CHANCE TO BUY A VERISON BUT NOT!!!!!!!!!
BUT I'M STILL OUT ON THE F-22. I JUST DONT KNOW LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER,LOOKS GOOD IN SOME TRAILS LETS SEE WHEN IT GOES UP AGAINST MIG-29'S OR SOME OF THE OTHER HOT JETS IN THE WORLD TODAY.

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Last time I checked the F-22 was not active in any USAF TFW. The USAF getting the F-22 is far from being a forgone conclussion.
The Navy's mission and buget is unique, and alot more transitionary in nature the the USAF's.........

Untill any of you understand the dynamics of the changes the Navy has has gone through since 1988 in relation to is foward thinking planning of the 1980's, I wouldn't ctiticize.

Carrier aircraft because they are carrier aircraft have obvious weight compromises, this is one reason why they must be large in size, and the exact reason why the F/A-18E/F is not the right plane for the job.

The Navy did not want the 18E/F............The 18E/F is not a Navy snafu but one forced apon it by various politicians and lobby groups.

The 14D is not reliant on USAF assets and is an organic warplane capable of stand alone mission capabilities.

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 1:16 PM

The F-22 is set to start replacing the F-15 fleet in late 2004.

As far as the F/A-18E/F being a good interceptor I think the facts speak for themselves. Obviously the F-14D has greater range than the E/F but the E/F has an excellent radar and, ofcourse can use the AMRAAM... what else does the Navy need... F-22s maybe? =) If any of you guys think the F/A-18E is a poor interceptor I recommend ONE thing... a catscan, good day.

"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

"Untill any of you understand the dynamics of the changes the Navy has has gone through since 1988 in relation to is foward thinking planning of the 1980's, I wouldn't ctiticize."

I do. Can i criticize the navy now? LOL.

"The F-22 is set to start replacing the F-15 fleet in late 2004."

I believe i read that 23 production aircraft will be delivered this year. If that happen's the F-22 is here to stay.

"As far as the F/A-18E/F being a good interceptor I think the facts speak for themselves."

That's the problem. What facts? Seriously.

"Obviously the F-14D has greater range than the E/F but the E/F has an excellent radar and"

No, not yet. It still uses the same old radar as the F-18C, which is nothing like the digital powerhouse that the APG-71 of the F-14D is.
The APG-79 AESA PLANNED for the F-18E/F is a much better set up, but it lacks Phoenix capability and reportedly has a significantly shorter detection envelope, but is far more ECM resistant.

", ofcourse can use the AMRAAM..."

So can the F-14D. It's fully integrated but is not embarked.

"what else does the Navy need... F-22s maybe? =)"

That would be awfully nice.

"If any of you guys think the F/A-18E is a poor interceptor I recommend ONE thing... a catscan, good day."

Ummmmmm....... the E is a bomber. the F is the 'interceptor'.
I'll be back guys, i'm going for a cat scan now





Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

um...I'm going to give the newbie a break and guess that he has a diff definition of "interceptor". I dont consider SH to be a interceptor no matter how many crew it has. The Hornets are mulitrole from head to toe, the F is just the designated Air To Air bird.

Last I heard the USAF is supposed to take 1 wing (or was it 3 squads? I dont recall)of the STOVL JSF for flex basing in case of airfield attack, in the same way that the Swedes train for using thier road system as airfields.

F-22 in USAF service, I REALLY dont think many people know how close the F/A-22 is to being scrapped! It wouldent take much from what I have read and heard the last 2 or 3 months. But IF raptor goes through it will be a LONG time before they buy enough to replace the F-15s.

Did the US Navy ever ease up on it's no Magnesium rule? I know why it's there, I just dont know if it's still in place.

"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.

"um...I'm going to give the newbie a break and guess that he has a diff definition of "interceptor". I dont consider SH to be a interceptor no matter how many crew it has."

On that we agree. It is just not suited to the task- as currently configured...

"The Hornets are mulitrole from head to toe, the F is just the designated Air To Air bird."

It IS however classified as a carrier borne air superiority interceptor, which it is not.

"Last I heard the USAF is supposed to take 1 wing (or was it 3 squads? I dont recall)of the STOVL JSF for flex basing in case of airfield attack, in the same way that the Swedes train for using thier road system as airfields."

That would be the first i've heard of that AT ALL!
A link would be appreciated Big B

"F-22 in USAF service, I REALLY dont think many people know how close the F/A-22 is to being scrapped!"

SInce we've talked about this in the past you know that i feel the same way.

"It wouldent take much from what I have read and heard the last 2 or 3 months. But IF raptor goes through it will be a LONG time before they buy enough to replace the F-15s."

Yup. But it will be more than 279 of them.

If it gets built at all it will get built in numbers far greater than currently projected once the inevitable F-15E replacement is figured in, IMHO.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The 14D is not reliant on USAF assets<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

WHAT!?!?!?!?! Have you ever heard of Afghanistan? The bombcats did not fly all the way to their targets and back without gas. Nor did they only use those small fighter/tanker things that are close to the ship. They relied on Air Force KC10s and KC135s to get in to where they needed to go. So did every other fighter involved (until the A10s set up shop in Bagram). If it were not for the tankers there would not have been bombs dropped by fighters in that country (again, until the A10s set up shop in Bagram). Reliance on tankers is the reality of today's fighters - especially the way we fight wars now.

My source for this is a KC135 pilot that I went to college with who flew in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The claim of refueling every fighter who went in and out of the country was also verified by several friends of mine in the KC10 community (I was in a KC10 squadron while awaiting pilot training back in 97-98).

Are there missions possible where the boat is close enough for the F14 to go in with no USAF tanker support? Of course. Are there similar missions where the boat would be close enough for the super hornet or even the normal hornet to do the same? Of course.

The F14D has great range but like I said before - fighters need tankers if they want to go anywhere they like and bomb whatever they like.

......and, what about AWACS? The navy version was only used for part of the skies. If the F14s refueled and went in further they were under the AF AWACS. How about joint stars? How about ground controllers? I know pretty much all of the AF fighters (not the F15Cs, those guys did not play in that war) did some CAS and relied on USAF combat controllers and tacp's. If the F14D did any of that stuff then they used some AF assets. The forces seem to be working better together nowadays....

F-14 "Bombcats" were flying at the extreme edge of their range from CVBG's in the Arabian Gulf. Your reply made my point quite clear, you stated that the Navy was totaly dependent on USAF tanking assets? Well in Afghanistan, the Navy was pretty much our only choice, not unlike alot of global situations where our "ally's" won't let us fly from their soil or through their airspace.

This makes my second point even louder.........If the US Navy is so dependent of USAF Tanking assets with the F-14 in Afghanistan, what is going to happend with the F-18E/F?

Untill USAF pilots become carrier qualified..........This is the way things will be.

The F-14D is capable of supporting itself as an organic fighter quite well, with minumimal USAF support in most situations. The A-6 and F-14 were designed with this independence in mind, the 18E/F is was not.

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 8:40 PM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 23 2003 01:30 AM

I'll try to find a link for something about the USAF JSF STOVL, ASAP IIRC (i'm goin for the record in acronyms LOL)it was well before the LockMart contract award.

"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.

M21, The E is the interceptor my friend... its the one-seater version of the superhornet. The F is more geared for the multi-role mission with the rear-seater working the LANTIRN system... stick with the sniper forums my friend By the way, the F/A-18E/F does not use the same radar as the C. The F/A-18C uses the APG-65, a relatively old rader (also used by the AV-8B)... the E/F currently employs the AESA. True, its not as powerful as the APG-71, but its much more advanced, integrates better with JTIDS (Joint-Tactical Information Distribution System) and has many more sub-modes than the old '71. While it is true that the Supertomcat can use phoenix, the AMRAAM still gives significant stand-off capability don't you think? Regardless the E/F has some nice avionics upgrades. In a perfect world, yes, we'd all love it if the Supertomcat stayed in, its well suited for the role.

Oh and stop calling me a newbie At least I'm a pilot! <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 22 2003 9:28 PM

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 22 2003 9:29 PM

The 18F is designed around the same criteria the Navy has utilized in its fighter aircraft since the F-4 Phantom, which is an aviator/RIO combination, in fact the 18F community is modeling its training syllabus from the 14's in regards to the aviator/RIO team concept. The 18F is going to be the air superiority variant, thus an intercepter. Yes the AMRAAM will give the 18F some stand off ability, but will lack the multi shot, multi track capacity of the APG-71,and doesn't have near the range.

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 9:51 PM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 9:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Oh and stop calling me a newbie At least I'm a pilot! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>



UH OH Cessna Boy called Bullshit! BRB Need to stock up on Popcorn. This will be an interesting read...

Very true Mr. Mudd, It's another episode of the WT soap operas!

Inlieu of popcorn, I'm frying up a batch of my own secret recipe; kinda like the colonel's but less greasy and better<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>.

I got Beer, Bring the Tupperware

I am going to go to my trailor down by the river untill the smoke clears from this one.

Great balls of fire!

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 22 2003 10:35 PM

"M21, The E is the interceptor my friend... its the one-seater version of the superhornet."

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/peo ... ni0423.txt

"Remarks as delivered by
Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN
Chief of Naval Operations

Address to the U.S. Naval Institute
Annapolis, Md.
23 April 1997"

"The F-18F
will replace the Tomcat; the F18E will replace F-18A's and C's;
and the rest of the F-18C’s will be replaced by the Joint Strike
Fighter."

Feel free to direct further arguments on that particular subject to the above address marked "attention:Office of CNO, USN".

Next.......

"The F is more geared for the multi-role mission with the rear-seater working the LANTIRN system..."

LANTIRN is a temporary band-aid until the 4th generation ATFLIR/IRST is installed starting in late 2004, and both variants will be capable of carrying LANTIRN, depending on the mission, Since both are bomb trucks first by intent and function.

"By the way, the F/A-18E/F does not use the same radar as the C."

If you bothered to do your homework you would know that the APG-79 AESA is not yet ready for deployment and that all currenty delivered S Hornets are being delivered with the APG-73 radar of the F-18C.
Initial deliveries of the APG-79 will begin in about 6 months.

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... .html#_APG

"AN/APG-79 AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) Multi-Mode Radar; manufactured by Raytheon; intended for F/A-18E/F as replacement for AN/APG-73"

"AN/APG-73 Pulse Doppler X-Band Multi-Mode Radar (upgrade of AN/APG-65); manufactured by Raytheon (Hughes); used in F/A-18C/D/E/F"

Next....

"The F/A-18C uses the APG-65, a relatively old rader (also used by the AV-8B)..."

Dude, the APG-65 is the radar of the F-18A.

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... .html#_APG]

"AN/APG-65 Pulse Doppler X-Band Multi-Mode Radar; manufactured by Raytheon (Hughes); used in F/A-18<A/B>, AV-8B+"

Moving on.....

"the E/F currently employs the AESA."

No, not yet it doesn't. It will be retrofitted later at further expense. See above links in case you forgot already...

Next, in regard to the APG-79 AESA i presume....

"True, its not as powerful as the APG-71, but its much more advanced, integrates better with JTIDS (Joint-Tactical Information Distribution System) and has many more sub-modes than the old '71."

The F-14D has been fully integrated with the JTIDS Link-16/FDL since it's introdiction in 1991.

- Remember our discussion with Nightwatch about this Luke?
For the record 'Nightwatch' posts at Warships1 and is a former E-2C Hawkeye mission specialist.

But you are correct that the APG-79 is state of the art, and has many advantadges over the APG-71, but detection range is not one of them.

"While it is true that the Supertomcat can use phoenix, the AMRAAM still gives significant stand-off capability don't you think?"

Yes, but AMRAAM is not as long a ranged missile as either the AA-12 Adder or R-73/AA-10 ALAMO.(Perhaps Luke or Mudd would confirm/deny that for us).
From my understanding the latest AIM-120C Block5 has extended range, but still not as long as the ones listed above.

Though i'm sure that Luke and many others will be quick to point out that max BVR range isn't everything.

"Regardless the E/F has some nice avionics upgrades. In a perfect world, yes, we'd all love it if the Supertomcat stayed in, its well suited for the role."

I agree with that totally.

"Oh and stop calling me a newbie At least I'm a pilot!"

I never called you a newbie, but i'd suggest that before you tell someone to stick to another topic you do some basic research to avoid being wrong on so many points in one post.

Sniper's are noted for their attention to detail, afterall


NOTE: The limited knowledge i bring to aviation topics is solely due to the expert tuteledge of Messr's Mudd, Luke, C.Andreychuk, Poke, Tiny Giant, Alfa Kilo, WartHog30, and all the other top notch professional USAF/USN pilots i have been lucky enough to converse with here and elsewhere.

Thanx for answering a grunt's questions guys


Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

LMAO 1 Post 1 Kill...


BRB..let me walk down range and stand this guy back up so Snipe can do'em again....



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"