WT Forums

You probably care about that chart as much as I care about those anti-hornet articles<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>. Also it depends on which source that came from.

I wouldn't worry about any of those procuremnets. The countries that are buying them are at an average of 18, not 1800. In a possible scenario, how are they gonna employ them after they're blown up on the ground and in their shelters by a single strike fighters cache of SDB's?

On another note, I am very fascinated by aircraft but I really have the keenest interest in weaponry.
Without it fighter aircraft would br overpriced personal jet liners.

And anyway, a great majority of the pilots jobs will be replaced by a flying unmanned computer if it comes into fruition.



Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 28 2003 7:59 PM

"I wouldn't worry about any of those procuremnets. The countries that are buying them are at an average of 18, not 1800. In a possible scenario, how are they gonna employ them after they're blown up on the ground and in their shelters by a single strike fighters cache of SDB's?"

Ask the Japanese how they did it....



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

I think I know what your getting at although I could be wrong.
Can you explain?

Good question A-10.

Just on the face of it having the F-18E ranked significantly better than the AESA radar equipped(both fore and AFT!), fully 3D vectored thrust SU-35 is ludicris.

You put two equal pilot's in an SU-35 and a F-18E the Hornet driver is gonna get smoked all day.
So would an Eagle, Viper or Tomcat D.

The SU-35 is the most manueverable in service fighter in the world by a looooooong shot.

That's the one they always show on Discovery wings doing a zero/- airspeed full 360 degree loop and maintianing full control.

That is an utterly amazing aircraft.


Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

"I wouldn't worry about any of those procuremnets.
The countries that are buying them are at an average of 18,
not 1800.
In a possible scenario, how are they gonna employ them
after they're blown up on the ground and in their
shelters by a single strike fighters cache of SDB's?"

Same way the got the Cole and the Stark,
and the Liberty and the Pueblo.

And Pearl Harbor

Surprise.

Now replace a rubber Zodiac(Cole), or an Exocet(Stark)- with 18 Backfires mounting three Mach 3.5 Kingfish AShM's(With a 2200 pound warhead!!!!), with a 250 mile range, attacking by surprise, and from all points of the compass.

If all we have up is a cap of F-18F's we won't be able to stop the Backfires from launching, and we won't be able to catch them to shoot them after they do launch- so they will remain a threat. And that is with CAPs well out from the fleet.

Whole different story with F-14D/Phooenix C's on CAP.

Iran just bought 18 Backfires.
India has at least twenty.
Russia still has over 100.
China has close to 100 Badger bombers with AS-4 Kitchen's, another gihugic Mach 2.5 antiship missile. They're old, but will break a Tico in two if one hits.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jan 29 2003 1:03 PM

Sniper......
Aircraft agility is not tremendous advantage when you consider all of the assets at the disposal of a NATO fighter pilot. With AWACS, AEGIS, and the logistics that are brought to the table, we usually know what an enemy fighter pilot ate for breakfast and have two fighters on an attack vector before his landing gear is up.

Once he is in the kill envelope of a slammer, turn out the lights the party is over. Now if the enemy could match our capabilities regarding the aformentioned advantages, then agility would become more of an advantage. I would take an F-15 or F-14 AWACS combo over anything any day of the week..........And come out ahead. SU-35 or not.........Besides name a country that has the SU-35 in viable numbers..........Like Mudd eloquently said.........UFO sightings are more common.

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





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 29 2003 9:06 PM

"Iran just bought 18 Backfires.
India has at least twenty.
Russia still has over 100.
China has close to 100 Badger bombers with AS-4 Kitchen's, another gihugic Mach 2.5 antiship missile..."

-Where did you here this?

Don't forget about our Aegis and the new SM-3's if they come online.
I bet the Navy is well aware of future threats and are preparing to meet them. And you also touched on a good subject, it seems that we should be less afraid of Backfire bombers and more of speed boats with plastic explosives on board, which in fact neither plane can protect.

I believe there is alot of capable things that are not revealed on the Hornet probably becauses of OPSEC. Who knows what new engines or new missile systems are going to be developed that increases its lethality.
I can't really put up a firewall to anti-hornet rhetoric because I don't have cold-hard facts And anyone that's in the know is not eager to share. But the pilots who've been in Tomcat and Hornet swear by the new plane.
Most of what I have to go on is what's said on the net which is tantamount to getting your hard news from the National Inquirer. That is to say I'm 90% sure about anything I read. On the web, its about 85% for anything pro and con.

I don't know if that chart is factual or not; it is from FAS. I just posted it to show that there is a different and strong opinion going around other than the one going presently on this site. The validity comes to that chart when it is known that it was forcasted by a Navy Admiral rather than the chief engineer from Boeing, St. Louis.

My idea: I want to find facts that I can base a solid opinion, Not find things that just agree with my present point of view. And its pretty hard when people in the true won't really talk.










Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 29 2003 10:03 PM

SU35 is an in-service aircraft?? Really?? On what planet? Who has them? India has the su30s. The SU35 if I recall correctly is not in service anywhere. Nor is the SU35 the aircraft you are thinking of sniper. The flanker with canards AND 2D (not 3D) thrust vectoring is the technology demonstrator SU37. That is the one that does the forward loop thing. The SU35 had canards and no thrust vectoring. My belief was that the SU30mki thing is what came out of the SU35 program. So, yes, the su30 is in (very limited) service but not the su35 and the su37 is the one with thrust vectoring and it only has 2d. But, the flanker (27) and the su30 are, like you maintained, the worlds most maneuverable fighter aircraft. With weapons loads they are more limited but so is everyone else carrying weapons. They have great slow speed and AoA handling and also some power and high speed turn ability. They are big though, and that means a 9 G turn takes longer to change the aircraft's momentum than a 9 G turn in something smaller like an F16 or Mirage2000.

The fact that ALL of the flanker variants have HUGE radar and heat cross sections, even bigger than the F14 which is a big aircraft, make the flanker a plane that you definitely want to take out before you get close. They have radars and missiles too but they are so easy to see from far away.....much more easy than a viper, eagle, hornet, tomcat, etc.....

So how long does a Fighter design last?
20-25 years?

The staying power of a fighter design varies with the designs growth potential and mission. The F-14 was designed in the late 60's after the Navy rejected the F-111B. It will be a 40 year old design when it is finaly retired in the 2010.

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

"Iran just bought 18 Backfires.
India has at least twenty.
Russia still has over 100.
China has close to 100 Badger bombers with AS-4 Kitchen's, another gihugic Mach 2.5 antiship missile..."

-Where did you here this?"

Read it on Janes i think. It was several months ago.

"Don't forget about our Aegis and the new SM-3's if they come online."

SM-3 is for ballistic missiles only. It has no AAW capability.
Aegis is good, but if you get sucker punched, you might as well be in a WWII tin can.

"I bet the Navy is well aware of future threats and are preparing to meet them. And you also touched on a good subject, it seems that we should be less afraid of Backfire bombers and more of speed boats with plastic explosives on board, which in fact neither plane can protect."

So if they should have been worried about that, yet took no preemptive corrective action, how can you make the argument the Navy is aware of future threats?

The FACT is NO ONE is aware of the future threats, cause they havn't happened yet.

"I believe there is alot of capable things that are not revealed on the Hornet probably becauses of OPSEC."

I certainly friggin hope so

"Who knows what new engines or new missile systems are going to be developed that increases its lethality."

Great, more money on an obsolete design. good idea...

"I can't really put up a firewall to anti-hornet rhetoric because I don't have cold-hard facts And anyone that's in the know is not eager to share. But the pilots who've been in Tomcat and Hornet swear by the new plane."

Some of them. Some hate it.

"My idea: I want to find facts that I can base a solid opinion, Not find things that just agree with my present point of view. And its pretty hard when people in the true won't really talk."

There is far more than enough fact available to form a reasoned opinion on most military programs. The Hornet is no exception.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

"SU35 is an in-service aircraft?? Really?? On what planet?"

All i can find on that is a bunch of sites stating it was to go in service in 1995, and that funding was secured for production.

Odd.

"Who has them?"

Ostensibly Russia.

"India has the su30s."

SU30MkI, actually- That one is even more dangerous than the SU-35.
Israeli avionics, missiles, ECM, and russian TVC.

China just this week bought a bunch of SU-30MkII's.
(Don't know what makes them a MkII, i'll look into that too;))

"The SU35 if I recall correctly is not in service anywhere."

I think you're probably right, the 1995 date that keeps cropping up is really old. Strikes me that if they were built i would find that too. And i found nothing of the sort when i just looked.

"Nor is the SU35 the aircraft you are thinking of sniper. The flanker with canards AND 2D (not 3D) thrust vectoring is the technology demonstrator SU37."

Yup, my appologies, but that isn't the tech demonstrator i don't think. The S.37 Berkut was the tech demonstrator(The one with the FSW), the SU-37 is intended to replace all earleir SU variants in Russian service(with what money i do not know).

"That is the one that does the forward loop thing. The SU35 had canards and no thrust vectoring."

Yup. You ever seen that manuever on discovery wings?

AWESOME!

"My belief was that the SU30mki thing is what came out of the SU35 program."

Yup, that and the SU-37, at least it seems based on the limited research i just now did.

"So, yes, the su30 is in (very limited) service but not the su35 and the su37 is the one with thrust vectoring and it only has 2d."

The MkI i think has 3d. I'll check on that.

"But, the flanker (27) and the su30 are, like you maintained, the worlds most maneuverable fighter aircraft. With weapons loads they are more limited but so is everyone else carrying weapons. They have great slow speed and AoA handling and also some power and high speed turn ability. They are big though, and that means a 9 G turn takes longer to change the aircraft's momentum than a 9 G turn in something smaller like an F16 or Mirage2000."

Thanx for the professional analysis. I like those

"The fact that ALL of the flanker variants have HUGE radar and heat cross sections, even bigger than the F14 which is a big aircraft, make the flanker a plane that you definitely want to take out before you get close. They have radars and missiles too but they are so easy to see from far away.....much more easy than a viper, eagle, hornet, tomcat, etc....."

Good thing too!



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN,THE GERMAN AIR FORCE HAS A WING OF SU-35.
IF YOU WATCH THE WINGS CHANNEL THEY SHOW IN A PART OF THE DOGFIGHT SERIES F-18'S GOING OVE TO ESATERN GERMANY TO DOG FIGHT THEM IN TRAINING.
THESE GERMAN PILOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST IN THIS AIRCRAFT,BETTER THEN THE RUSSIAN BY FAR.
I'LL GIVE A WATCH FOR IT AGAIN

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Yes and the Navy Pilots were upset. the first time they ever had to transition eyeballs to their Six as the germin Migs got into an optimum control zone.<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> F18C is a decent plane, however Their High AOA ability if not careful will cause A very high energy Bleed in the Turns. Its always better to take the long way around or to cut the turn value before the merge. Migs Do well in the medium altitudes.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

Goose,

I saw that discovery wings episode also. Those were Mig-29s my friend. The germans have a whole squadron of them. We sent some of our Navy and Marine Corps. F/A-18Cs over to germany for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training). Guess who won? The Hornets ofcourse!

And yes M21, the SU35 is without doubt the most maneuverable aircraft out there... anyone who argues against that needs to learn about supermaneuverability. I'd take my F-15 w/APG-70 and a couple AMRAAMs over it any day of the week and twice on sunday though.

"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Big Thug,

Yeah, if I remember correctly one of the pilots experienced departure in a tight vertical maneuver against one of the Migs. The -29' lacks the maneuverablity that the -18 has though... it has the advantage of power though, I'll give you that.


"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Once pilots fully realise their aircrafts abilities and weakness's they learn very quickly that Fighting in a 3d Enviroment is good, but keeping a 1 circle fight in the 2d vertical axis is very bad. Personally anything after the Merge is very bad. The mig 29 Like other High power to weight ratio fighters do well with energy management, because they have the Added thrust in reserve. They have a wider margin to make mistakes and power out of them. This is why Mig pilots Lose 7-10 times. A pilot that is required to fly in a tougher set of rules is able to setup the lesser skilled pilot and hopefully get the Snap shot. This is why A10, F111. A-6, S-3, ETc Etc Etc Pilots piss off the Dogfighters. Cause they know their limitations and stay in the region they have control. The dogfighters Get overconfident and dont evaluate the conditions and make that 1 lethal mistake... That is the sole purpose of DACT. To learn those painfull lessons.


Buzz I was there. I was the NATO Liason For Training activities concerning interoperability of Nato Countries involved in Joint expeditionary Air Forces. Primarily the Balkan Campaigns and Future Contingencies. I was a Weapons Instructor in AETC for 4 years. Best part about the Nato Assignment, was flying Member Nation Aircraft and implementing them into the NATO plan of battle. This means I also have time in the Hungarian and German Mig 29 <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> And other former Communist block types... <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

I think one of your observations pretty well sums this argument up, Big Thug: "...the lesser skilled pilot..." . We've mentioned it before in other threads, too. You can have the biggest, baddest, meanest piece of hardware out there, but if you can't afford to train the driver and/or maintain the beast, it all becomes acedemic.

King George II on Gen. James Wolfe: "Mad, is he? Then I wish he'd bite more of my other generals!"

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Great, more money on an obsolete design. good idea...

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't think this plane would be classified as obsolete if it's going to be around for the next 15 years-better radar, better engines-just like the F-14A+.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There is far more than enough fact available to form a reasoned opinion on most military programs. The Hornet is no exception. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
-I agree, show something <i>recent</i>.



<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So if they should have been worried about that, yet took no preemptive corrective action, how can you make the argument the Navy is aware of future threats? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think they are trying; however, noone's perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Some of them. Some hate it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

From what I have heard, most like it and I haven't read anyone whose hated it that's presently working with it. I've posted an ex-tom pilot who loves the new plane.If you find a first-hand account of a present pilot who thinks differently then you're more than welcome to post the opposite.

I'm just saying that I don't think that this plane is the big comprimise that your side makes it out to be, that's all.

<b>After reading about the ST-21's capabilities I began to drool</b> but
what's done is done for the Navy. You and TT have every right to be upset. Grumman should have fought tooth and nail to see that their plane came forth.

However, I think there's not going to be any love lost when the F-14D leaves. There will be a few tears shed in the beginning, but that's it. Who knows what's in store for the future-Hopefully a beefed up navy-version JSF-THAT WOULD BE COOL.
















Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 30 2003 1:03 PM

True story 30MM, Warfighting is a perishible skill, Being in the saddle is your continueing education.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

Interestingly enough, here's a new article relevant to what we are debating:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/859747.asp?vts=013020031055

Having a sore a$$ is preferable to having a dead one!

King George II on Gen. James Wolfe: "Mad, is he? Then I wish he'd bite more of my other generals!"

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

just to be clear here; <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They are big though, and that means a 9 G turn takes longer to change the aircraft's momentum than a 9 G turn in something smaller like an F16 or Mirage2000 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> a "G" is just a degree per second lateral acceleration change, so an F-16 pulling 9 Gs would carve the same circle as a B-52(just an example guys LOL) pulling 9 Gs, but Snipe is saying a heavier plane would take longer to get that 9Gs started, and time, like speed, is life in a knife fight.

"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.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
WHERE’S THE THREAT?
Behind Congressional worries about the impact of the three-plane strategy on a shrinking budget are questions about what these new aircraft add to U.S. military capabilities. The next generation Soviet aircraft the F-22 was designed to fight, for instance, died on the drawing board along with the Soviet Union. Russia designs top-notch fighters, but it lacks the resources to build them in sufficient numbers to rival the U.S. arsenal. Even as exports to potential U.S. foes, the Russian aircraft lack the sophisticated battlefield management systems that the United States uses to integrate its warplanes into a gigantic, all-present military machine that includes naval, ground and air assets.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes i believe i have already said that.... in a Mig vs F16 thread..

however I disagree with that philosophy and soon policy; That since we have no current threat, We should rest on our Laurels. Being the best requires continuos improvement. The challenges we set today, are what saves our ass when we are not prepared for them in the future. We maintain the Edge because failure and compromise is not an option.

The low quantity Red Baron policy died with Hitler. 2 of the most important lessons learned from WW2.

Keep a constant rotation between fighter billets and Training billets in the Career path. In the end, the team is the red baron, and like the japanese learned. Dont send a boy to do a Mans job.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

Yeah, well that's the point. The F-22's adversaries DID NOT die on the drawing board, they are alive and well in the SU-30MkI/II, SU-37(proposed to replace all Russian SU's), and the SU-33.

Not to mention the Rafale which the French are currently trying to sell to Pakistan. That's just what the world needs.

Suppose all those state of the art F-16C Block60's that we are selling to UAE- the one's significantly better than our own- become hostile assets when UAE is taken by a muslim fundamental coup unexpectedly.

What if we lose Saudi arabia and it's large modern airforce of F-15A's and F-16C's to the fundamentalists?

We NEED dominating fighters- not just good enough fighters.

That's why i called the F-18E/F obsolete- they do not qualify as dominating fighters by any stretch of the word, and they are not stealth.

No clubbing baby seals in a Super Hornet.

The USN wanted the ST-21, it's gone- forever.
HOWEVER, they now have the unique opportunity to completely standardize the air wing on the JSF, which enters service in 2008.

Every dime of the Super Hornet should be spent on JSF instead, to get more, sooner.

Field a carrier air wing of 64 F-35's, THEN you got something

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jan 30 2003 1:56 PM