By: Sauron
- 25th December 2001 at 22:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Russian combo
Garry, please go back and read my comment about the Mig-29/carrier combo again. The last thing in the world I was suggesting, was that the Russians would be worried about the technology behind either the Gorshkov or the Mig-29 falling into the hands of someone other than the Indians! I doubt if anyone including Pakistan is worried about it either. As Jonesy said it before, India should pass on this whole deal because it "isn't the real deal".
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th December 2001 at 01:43Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE:
Vortex
You are injecting a few facts into this discussion... Thank You.
Your points about Radar Cross Section are quite valid, but only for an attack role.
Interceptors will be using their radars and will be accelerating as fast as they can (requiring full afterburner) and resulting in wonderful IRST targets anyway.
Their role in interception is to protect a fleet worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
In combat having to drop a few missiles so they can land is not really a big deal as long as the supply lines can keep up.
It is only during peace time that they whine about the cost.
Increased landing weight would be nice for the Tomcat but integration of the AMRAAM and arming it with that missile in lieu of the two extra phoenix's that take it over weight could be another solution.(ie armed with four phoenix's under belly, and AMRAAMs on the wing pylons with sidewinders in their usual place would be a very formidible load... or maybe even twin F-18 type launchers on the wing pylons and another where the sidewinders go if that doesn't take it over weight.)
Your point about the range capability of the F-14 being a problem where if they are on one side of the fleet and the fleet is attacked from the other side it is a disadvantage is interesting.
The extra range the F-14 has means droptanks are rarely used. This has important performance implications. It also means the Tomcat pilot doesn't have to be as careful about how often he uses the afterburner as a pilot in an F-18.
If a threat is detected on one side of the fleet and the CAP is on the other side of the fleet the standby CAP would probably launch (if it was a genuine threat) whether the standby was F-14 or F-18. Carrier groups as you well know are made up from lots of specialised ships. The loss of all the ASW ships leaves the fleet vulnerable, the loss of the AA ships would leave a hole in the fleets defences, etc etc. The further out you can hit an incoming threat the less likely they can hurt the fleet.
It is the same as ABM systems. The most effective system will be able to hit the enemy missiles within 100 odd seconds after launch when they are accelerating and when all the warheads (and decoys) are all bundled in a few missiles. It is easier to use an F-14 to shoot down 10 Tu-22M3s than an F-18 to shoot down 100 missiles travelling between mach 3 and mach 5 plus the the 10 aircraft. (The missiles would of course be the priority targets, but if you don't hit any Tu-22M3s they'll be back later with more missiles.)
"As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math."
Roughly 1.23 vs 1.3 so an advantage of .07 to the F-18E/F.
I am very suspicious about your use of empty weights though because unless the pilot ejects this weight is never achieved during a mission and therefore is quite irrelevant.
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th December 2001 at 02:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: again
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-12-01 AT 03:01 AM (GMT)]Check your "engineering" again. The E/F engines never made it close to 22,000. It is still down in the sub 18,000 region. Thus part of the low performance problem. Thats actual performance, not a sales brochure. Another thing that is being "worked on".
elp
usa
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 26th December 2001 at 05:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Brewster Buffalo II
"As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math.
The Sub-par Hornet's actual level of thrust is 20,800 per hole, according to the actual GE F414 manual, the result I think of airflow restriction imposed by the much lauded radar inlet baffling "Device". So here we have a less than expected amount of thrust pushing a design that turned out to be particularily draggy even before the wing drop and stores separation quick fixes made things worse...
By: Vortex
- 26th December 2001 at 06:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wow..you have the actual manual
How thick is that "book"?So, the engine is still 22,000lbf uninstalled thrust. Do you have the installed thrust figures for a CD model where the uninstalled thrust is rated at 18,000lbf? That would've put things into perspective. Again, not only is Installed thrust important, but the actual thrust curve versus airspeed and altitude is very important too.
The empty weight is not for calculating TWR, Garry, but as a comparison with the CD version...since you're comparing, everything can be left as a ratio. As to the multiple "phantom" vectors, if a large airforce really want, playing with a CVBG is very likely with high speed inbound dashes and then retreat...then it's a question of how much supplies a CVBG have for a week. With long range land based high performance fighters proliferating, more and more countries can do that. You don't have to fire a single round and you can prevent a CVBG from doing the original plan. Anytime a CVBG feels threatened, it'll back off a bit or slow down before proceeding unless an all out war is declared. But, that's going to be more and more difficult. No nation in their right mind would want to take the US on, but definitely they can play assymetric warfare to slow it down or "spook" it without even firing a shot at each other. Decisive warfare in the future will take shorter and shorter and any delay is going to cost. The F-14 has a theoretical higher flight speed. But, to use that speed means very rapid loss of range, most likely only useful in interception from a cat rather than a CAP vector scramble. If that's the case, the EF is at an advantage for being more efficient at acceleration and high speed. If you split the CVBG into 4 sectors and all those four are possible threats on your cruise to the planned operating area then it's a rather dangerous situation wouldn't you say? There are weaknesses in every single weapon system(s) and the major weakness of a carrier is that afterall it's mission ends when the supply ends. In that sense, to the US, the bring back, acceleration, and reliability performance is very very important. I know, no matter what I say, Tom will say that's BS, but i believe the USN knows perfectly well what their own weaknesses are. CVBGs being too "costly" to "risk" losing one of them is one of the weaknesses. Like all SAM sites, you don't have to sink a carrier to render it ineffective. You simply leave it out of the equation for a few days.
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th December 2001 at 17:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: wow..you have the actual manual
I think many of the Super Hornet supporters are missing the point?(or just don't get it?) What many of us are saying. Is that the Super Hornet is only a marginal improvement over the standard hornet.(C/D) Also many of those same supporters acknowledge that the Super Hornet is inferior to the Rafale and Typhoon is Air-Air Combat. For the next 10 years the U.S. Navy needs long range strike aircraft. During that time it faces little threats from Air-Air. (or at least nothing it can't handle!) The Tomcat in its current verison (F-14D) has a much superior payload/range capability than the F/A-18 E/F. Before the Super Hornet fans jump on me and say that is not true. Here is a quote from Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist on the payload/range comparison of the F-14D vs the F/A-18E/F.......the unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 lbs LGB's, Two Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two, 280 gallon external tanks)is at least 500 miles. Accompanying F/A-18 E/F's have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the load! In short the Super Hornet doesn't have the Payload/Range of the U.S. Navy's current fighter (F-14) and won't be superior in Air-Air to the next generation coming out now! (i.e. Rafale, Typhoon,etc.) The U.S. Navy would have been much wiser to upgrade a small number (80) of F-14's to D standard until the JSF became available!(or something better?) Thats like spending more to get less! Which, is the hole Tomcat argument in the first place!
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 26th December 2001 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Typhoon and F-14
Scooter, your original question concerned a comparison of the Super Hornet, Rafale and the Mig-29SMTK. We have, thanks to Harry, a drawing of the Mig with his assurances that it will be on a par with the Rafale and will screw the SH. A number of Rafales are apparently aboard the CDG undergoing operational trials. It remains to be seen how successfull these trials will be. As Vortex pointed out, there is no GAO to audit this process. The Super Hornet in contrast, is in full sqn service and will go to sea shortly.
The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground role as we have all seen. Even if it does turn out that the Super Hornet is only equal to the C/D, in the hands of the USN it be no less capable. The Rafale has yet to prove it is effective at sea, nevermind superior to the Hornet. At the moment the Mig is only a concept and will screw no one.
The Typhoon will not enter regular service for a few more years apparenty and no navalized version is planned at the moment unless someone here knows otherwise so at the moment it isn't relevant as far as your original question is concerned.
Regards
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 26th December 2001 at 21:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: wow..you have the actual manual
"How thick is that "book"?So, the engine is still 22,000lbf uninstalled thrust. Do you have the installed thrust figures for a CD model where the uninstalled thrust is rated at 18,000lbf? That would've put things into perspective. Again, not only is Installed thrust important, but the actual thrust curve versus airspeed and altitude is very important too."
That figure was given to me by a Navy tech on another forum. The "Device" is integral to the F414 so I think the thrust figure would be unchanged in another airframe. The same person who stated the 20,800 lb figure placed the F404 EFP's thrust at 17,700 lbs.
New
By: Anonymous
- 27th December 2001 at 01:27Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Typhoon and F-14
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-12-01 AT 01:37 AM (GMT)]So what Sauron is basically saying is the F-18E/F is the best aircraft because it will be part of a US force that will protect it and hide its shortcomings with more inflight refuelings.
Thank you for basically repeating what I said above in post 21:
"It has less capability than both of the aircraft it replaced, it has all the latest gadgets and is insulated by being part of a war machine that is powerful enough to absorb its weaknesses, but it really is a second class weapon."
I am sure this is all a conspirisy by Cheny and Rumsfield so that they can show that the carriers are useless and it is better to use B-2s launched and landed in fortress america rather than have vulnerable CVNs floating around despite the fact that they keep US sea lanes of communication open and are available to threaten most countries at a few days notice.
"The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground role as we have all seen. Even if it does turn out that the Super Hornet is only equal to the C/D, in the hands of the USN it be no less capable."
You just don't get it do you?
Yes the Hornet can drop bombs.
A Tomahawk cruise missile could probably do the same job at much longer range and without an enormous support fleet of jammers and refueling aircraft.
Of course it would be less flexible, but we have seen in the past that Civilian convoys and airraid shelters for civilians can be bombed by accident even when there is a human in the loop.
Being great at dropping bombs will be little consolation when they return to find their carrier on the bottom.
"At the moment the Mig is only a concept..."
Mig-29Ks have been built and fully tested. The SMT upgrades are being applied to Mig-29s in Russian service now. There is nothing "theoretical" about it.
The reason the -K did not beat the Su-33 (apart from considerable political power) was because the Russians didn't want an Multirole fighter bomber, they wanted an aircraft to protect the fleet and the carrier from ships and aircraft... ie AAMs and anti ship missiles, with unguided bombs and rockets for warning shots at smugglers and illegal fishing if necessary.
The extra range, larger warload and longer range radar and missiles made the Su-33 the right choice despite being a larger aircraft that reduced the number of aircraft on board which is already at a premium. This suggests they saw protecting their billion dollar ships was more important than being able to bomb some poor country that annoys them.
Besides their focus was more on anti ship warfare to take on US carriers rather than doing what the US CVNs do to little countries and that is something that you haven't taken into account. Not every carrier owner needs to have strike aircraft but the ability of aircraft to overwhelm ships shows interceptors are necessary to defend the fleet.
By: Jonesy
- 27th December 2001 at 11:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CVBG logistics
"As to the multiple "phantom" vectors, if a large airforce really want, playing with a CVBG is very likely with high speed inbound dashes and then retreat...then it's a question of how much supplies a CVBG have for a week. With long range land based high performance fighters proliferating, more and more countries can do that. You don't have to fire a single round and you can prevent a CVBG from doing the original plan. Anytime a CVBG feels threatened, it'll back off a bit or slow down before proceeding unless an all out war is declared. But, that's going to be more and more difficult. No nation in their right mind would want to take the US on, but definitely they can play assymetric warfare to slow it down or "spook" it without even firing a shot at each other. Decisive warfare in the future will take shorter and shorter and any delay is going to cost."
Sorry Vortex but youre not making much sense there! Are you suggesting that by playing dogging tactics an aggressive force could deplete the resources (I'm assuming you mean spares and fuels here) of a CVBG built round a full-up US type carrier? If that was the case Vortex how do you think that the USN kept the two carriers on station of the Vietnamese coast back in that war or how the RN managed to keep two very much smaller carriers supplied at the end of an 8000km logistics chain in the South Atlantic. Fleet UNderway REPlenishment (UNREP) is an operational art which is as vital to blue water navies as every weapons system they posses. The best navies are those who show proficiency in this, uncool, unglamarous and bloody backbreaking art.
Thus keeping a CVBG operating, even at relatively high optempo's is fairly routine. If you have a big enough air group then its not even necessary to tax the ponces...sorry, pilots, that much. Besides, it'd be a relatively easy matter to discourage this airborne cat and mouse game through RoE changes or by speed running and AEGIS destroyer or two, under EMCON, onto the threat axis when no-ones looking }>. The ships may not be able to shoot but the "attacking" aircraft may have to be stood down for a couple of days to have theyre ejection seats cleaned :D.
By: Harry
- 27th December 2001 at 13:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CVBG logistics
Sauron,you'd be better off by simply saying "Mig-29 sucks because it's russian" and "F/A-18 rulez becoz it's American"
>>The Super Hornet in contrast, is in full sqn service and will go to
>>sea shortly.
>>The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground
>>role as we have all seen.
And this is supposed to make it superior?:D
>>At the moment the Mig is only a concept and will screw no one.
I'm sorry but this one has been extensively tested.Like GarryB said,both the -K and SMT upgrades have already demonstrated their capabilities and advantages and a combination of both would naturally be excellent.
>>We have, thanks to Harry, a drawing of the Mig with his assurances
>>that it will be on a par with the Rafale and will screw the SH
I'm sorry but if you're saying that I have based my opinion on the capabilities of the SMTK purely on the drawing,I suggest you'd better actually read and understand people's posts and a few facts instead of just throwing your narrow minded and blind personal opinion at us.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 27th December 2001 at 17:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Mig
Harry, Garry, anyone, supply us all with a picture of a Mig-29 currenty at sea on a carrier.
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th December 2001 at 03:39Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The Mig
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 28-12-01 AT 03:52 AM (GMT)]" Harry, Garry, anyone, supply us all with a picture of a Mig-29 currenty at sea on a carrier."
WOW... so the Sea King helocopter is better than the F-35 V/STOL fighter!!!!!!!!!
Which shows the Year deployed to sea as 1993 which is of course when the prototype first sailed on the Kuznetsov.
Attachments:
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 28th December 2001 at 04:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Mig
Garry, thanks for the photo altho its not quite what I had in mind. I finely found some information that suggests that the first delivery to India is scheduled for late 2002. Based on the details provided in some of the previous posts I was beginning to think I was incorrect and that some had actually been delivered to the Indian Navy.
By: Vortex
- 28th December 2001 at 22:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jonesy..
the multiple threat to a CVBG with the "cat and mouse" game is extrememly seriously today. Your example of faulklands and Vietnam is already yesterday's problem. The new threat is exactly the availability and proliferation of high performance long range fighters and ASMs. The NVAF didn't have that and look what the Argentinians did with a handful of so so Exocets in today's standard. The idea is NOT to combat the US forces directly, but to "threat" our HVAs. In the cold war, to "threat" means to destroy, but today to "threat" simply means put it out of the equation for a few days or weeks. And exactly my point is even with the relatively poor performing SEtendards with "short" ranged Exocets, the RN's carrier battle group had to be situation much further. SEtendards was at the time the only relatively long ranged high performance strike aircraft on the Argentinian list.
By: Jonesy
- 29th December 2001 at 00:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Vortex
What you are describing, Vortex is a concept now fashionably labelled Virtual Attrition. That is that an opfor could remain just inside our peacetime RoE's and lead us on a merry dance whilst achieving their strategic aims elsewhere.
In reality this is nothing new as people have been using deception to achieve tactical and strategic suprise since the Trojan Wars and probably even further back than that. The answer to it is in good intelligence (if you are so blessed to be able to find it) and excellent comms and awareness (if youre not!).
I was not using either the falklands or the carrier stations off Vietnam to illustrate this principle. Rather that you seemed to believe that using feint tactics that a carriers' supplies could be exhausted to a point where the CVBG's operational readiness could be impaired. I was using those prolonged, high intensity, deployments to indicate that this was very definitely not the case.
The issue with the Argentine Exocets isnt so much that the Argentines did anything especially brilliantly (despite the excellent performance of theyre aircrews). Rather that the RN were not set up for expeditionary warfare and hadnt previously considered the AM.39 a threat that needed defending against. As a member of the upper echelons once said "We werent prepared to defend ourselves against Exocet because the Russians dont have Exocet".
Anyway, the lessons from that campaign have echoed around the world now and no nation possesing a carrier would deploy it without some form of organic AEW (possibly excepting Brazil as I'm not sure what theyre inventory is in this regard, anyone?). Thus hostile air power is very much easier to counter.
Youre post also seems to insinuate that you think the ground based air force would have all the fun. Typical jp-head bias there Vortex, shame on you :-). I can assure you that the handbook includes some very nifty tricks that can have aircraft wandering over tracts of empty water for hours (very boring for pilots, I believe!) or getting very unpleasant suprises when they do find ships!.
One of the best of these, to illustrate, was a story told to me by a former USN radar officer. His CVBG was operating within shore based air surveillance range of an unfriendly nation and everyone knew it.
So, very simply, all they would do was to have all launching aircraft transit to a spot 60 miles offset from the carrier at very low alt (below opfor radar coverage) then pull up and, in turn, have all returning aircraft head to the same spot and descend as if landing, making the return transit once again below "hostile" coverage. This "spot" duly travelled in parallel with the battlegroup and naturally to the other side appeared to be the position of the CVBG's carrier.
Unfortunately for the Marpat aircraft sent out to sneak up on the US carrier the "pull-up" position was actually occupied by an AEGIS cruiser and at least one other vessel (memory dims!).
Suffice it to say that if the "Virtual" warfare had escalated the carrier would have been quite free to go about its business and the MarPat squadron have been short by a couple of aircraft. Aircraft are certainly a very great threat to shipping but the playing field is a great deal more level than many people suspect!.
Regards,
Steve
New
By: Anonymous
- 29th December 2001 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE:
Don't forget context Vortex.
Remember at the time the Sea Harrier was a largely untested design and they were outnumbered by about 10 to 1 by the Argentine AF which included Mirages'.
If the Argentines had BVR missiles things might have been very different.
Of course if the RN had kept their old carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers it would also have been different, but despite the scorn poured on small non cat equipped aircraft carriers without any fixed wing air power I really don't think there would be any British flags in the Malvinas now.
Sauron
2002 actually surprises me.
Only one year away.
The boat they will be embarked on will not enter full service until at least 2009-2010, but I guess practice time is needed both for pilots and maintenance and support guys.
The Mig-29 is already in service with India so most if not all of the spares and serviceing will be done in India.
By: Vortex
- 29th December 2001 at 01:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
interesting story.
you see, that's what this forum is for....of course deception is one of the oldest must in any battlefield, but Jonesy, you've forgotten that not once in the history of warfare was single or double digit casualties would become the end of an military campaign. Losing an HVA today is much worse than losing an entire fleet like in the days of Pearl Harbor. As to the deception story, it's a double edged sword. To be prudent is to take sufficient risks to achieve surprise, but no doubt during real crisis, you sure the captain of that carrier would risk all that just to offset by 60 miles and "trap" some fighter bombers? I think more realistically, once a threat is known or "perceived" the carrier will move much farther offshore and the escorts will employ layered defense/decoy much like what the British did in the Faulklands in order to protect the flag at all costs. In such a case, what if the Argentinos have something on the order of a Su30 class fighter that was able to perform a hook manuever and come from the south? And simultaneously there's a frontal "phantom" threat and then another group is able to attack from NEE of the carrier (where Vientecinco de Mayo should've been). The exact point on this post is to address why the F-18E/F. Yes, it's a strike fighter, but that's only when area defense is secured. The JSF will be the first strike package when there are no air superiority. The EF has much better reliability than the F-14 with much lower MTBFs and the acceleration is needed exactly to counter the fact that there's only ~20 available air superiority fighters on a CVBG. The other side simply has to make their trick work just once, and that's enough to send the CVBG farther away. I highly doubt that in the forseeable future, "powerful" nations (Britain, Franch, US, Russia, India, and China) is going to pound directly at each other. But, you can sure bet on the national interests to collide no matter how much diplomacy. They will fight each other indirectly much like what the US and USSR had done during the cold war. Remember not even the Soviets have this kind of high performance threat until the Tu-22M showed up, while today's Su-30/34 class fighters are much more deadlier. Tom always said about finding a Carrier is really tough, he's right, but you can't assume that you are not spotted, because you don't know that either. Since this is not 1:1 war anyways, the "enemy" had all the time and rights to tract you since technically you are not at war with each other until somebody fires that first bullet. (technically a foreign navy can shaddow the CVBG legally and openly once it leaves port and enters international waters).
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 29th December 2001 at 01:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Vortex
off this topic slightly but did anyone (especailly johnsey) ee that documentary on channel 4 about the t21 and t42 ships down in the falklands. very scary how the uk could loose a t42 to an attack of A4s armed with iron bombs!
good points being made here
rabie :9
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 29th December 2001 at 05:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: RN losses
Rabbie, given the confined nature of the waters the RN ships found themselves in and the fact that the A-4's used the surrounding hills to mask their approach until they were close enough to make an effective run at the RN ships using iron bombs, the outcome shouldn't be a suprise to anyone. The Skyhawks were in their element against RN ships that were designed to operate in the North Atlantic hunting Russian subs.They were not designed for D day.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 25th December 2001 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Russian combo
Garry, please go back and read my comment about the Mig-29/carrier combo again. The last thing in the world I was suggesting, was that the Russians would be worried about the technology behind either the Gorshkov or the Mig-29 falling into the hands of someone other than the Indians! I doubt if anyone including Pakistan is worried about it either. As Jonesy said it before, India should pass on this whole deal because it "isn't the real deal".
Regards
By: Anonymous - 26th December 2001 at 01:43 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE:
Vortex
You are injecting a few facts into this discussion... Thank You.
Your points about Radar Cross Section are quite valid, but only for an attack role.
Interceptors will be using their radars and will be accelerating as fast as they can (requiring full afterburner) and resulting in wonderful IRST targets anyway.
Their role in interception is to protect a fleet worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
In combat having to drop a few missiles so they can land is not really a big deal as long as the supply lines can keep up.
It is only during peace time that they whine about the cost.
Increased landing weight would be nice for the Tomcat but integration of the AMRAAM and arming it with that missile in lieu of the two extra phoenix's that take it over weight could be another solution.(ie armed with four phoenix's under belly, and AMRAAMs on the wing pylons with sidewinders in their usual place would be a very formidible load... or maybe even twin F-18 type launchers on the wing pylons and another where the sidewinders go if that doesn't take it over weight.)
Your point about the range capability of the F-14 being a problem where if they are on one side of the fleet and the fleet is attacked from the other side it is a disadvantage is interesting.
The extra range the F-14 has means droptanks are rarely used. This has important performance implications. It also means the Tomcat pilot doesn't have to be as careful about how often he uses the afterburner as a pilot in an F-18.
If a threat is detected on one side of the fleet and the CAP is on the other side of the fleet the standby CAP would probably launch (if it was a genuine threat) whether the standby was F-14 or F-18. Carrier groups as you well know are made up from lots of specialised ships. The loss of all the ASW ships leaves the fleet vulnerable, the loss of the AA ships would leave a hole in the fleets defences, etc etc. The further out you can hit an incoming threat the less likely they can hurt the fleet.
It is the same as ABM systems. The most effective system will be able to hit the enemy missiles within 100 odd seconds after launch when they are accelerating and when all the warheads (and decoys) are all bundled in a few missiles. It is easier to use an F-14 to shoot down 10 Tu-22M3s than an F-18 to shoot down 100 missiles travelling between mach 3 and mach 5 plus the the 10 aircraft. (The missiles would of course be the priority targets, but if you don't hit any Tu-22M3s they'll be back later with more missiles.)
"As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math."
Roughly 1.23 vs 1.3 so an advantage of .07 to the F-18E/F.
I am very suspicious about your use of empty weights though because unless the pilot ejects this weight is never achieved during a mission and therefore is quite irrelevant.
By: Anonymous - 26th December 2001 at 02:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: again
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-12-01 AT 03:01 AM (GMT)]Check your "engineering" again. The E/F engines never made it close to 22,000. It is still down in the sub 18,000 region. Thus part of the low performance problem. Thats actual performance, not a sales brochure. Another thing that is being "worked on".
elp
usa
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 26th December 2001 at 05:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Brewster Buffalo II
"As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math.
The Sub-par Hornet's actual level of thrust is 20,800 per hole, according to the actual GE F414 manual, the result I think of airflow restriction imposed by the much lauded radar inlet baffling "Device". So here we have a less than expected amount of thrust pushing a design that turned out to be particularily draggy even before the wing drop and stores separation quick fixes made things worse...
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 26th December 2001 at 06:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wow..you have the actual manual
How thick is that "book"?So, the engine is still 22,000lbf uninstalled thrust. Do you have the installed thrust figures for a CD model where the uninstalled thrust is rated at 18,000lbf? That would've put things into perspective. Again, not only is Installed thrust important, but the actual thrust curve versus airspeed and altitude is very important too.
The empty weight is not for calculating TWR, Garry, but as a comparison with the CD version...since you're comparing, everything can be left as a ratio. As to the multiple "phantom" vectors, if a large airforce really want, playing with a CVBG is very likely with high speed inbound dashes and then retreat...then it's a question of how much supplies a CVBG have for a week. With long range land based high performance fighters proliferating, more and more countries can do that. You don't have to fire a single round and you can prevent a CVBG from doing the original plan. Anytime a CVBG feels threatened, it'll back off a bit or slow down before proceeding unless an all out war is declared. But, that's going to be more and more difficult. No nation in their right mind would want to take the US on, but definitely they can play assymetric warfare to slow it down or "spook" it without even firing a shot at each other. Decisive warfare in the future will take shorter and shorter and any delay is going to cost. The F-14 has a theoretical higher flight speed. But, to use that speed means very rapid loss of range, most likely only useful in interception from a cat rather than a CAP vector scramble. If that's the case, the EF is at an advantage for being more efficient at acceleration and high speed. If you split the CVBG into 4 sectors and all those four are possible threats on your cruise to the planned operating area then it's a rather dangerous situation wouldn't you say? There are weaknesses in every single weapon system(s) and the major weakness of a carrier is that afterall it's mission ends when the supply ends. In that sense, to the US, the bring back, acceleration, and reliability performance is very very important. I know, no matter what I say, Tom will say that's BS, but i believe the USN knows perfectly well what their own weaknesses are. CVBGs being too "costly" to "risk" losing one of them is one of the weaknesses. Like all SAM sites, you don't have to sink a carrier to render it ineffective. You simply leave it out of the equation for a few days.
By: Anonymous - 26th December 2001 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: wow..you have the actual manual
I think many of the Super Hornet supporters are missing the point?(or just don't get it?) What many of us are saying. Is that the Super Hornet is only a marginal improvement over the standard hornet.(C/D) Also many of those same supporters acknowledge that the Super Hornet is inferior to the Rafale and Typhoon is Air-Air Combat. For the next 10 years the U.S. Navy needs long range strike aircraft. During that time it faces little threats from Air-Air. (or at least nothing it can't handle!) The Tomcat in its current verison (F-14D) has a much superior payload/range capability than the F/A-18 E/F. Before the Super Hornet fans jump on me and say that is not true. Here is a quote from Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist on the payload/range comparison of the F-14D vs the F/A-18E/F.......the unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 lbs LGB's, Two Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two, 280 gallon external tanks)is at least 500 miles. Accompanying F/A-18 E/F's have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the load! In short the Super Hornet doesn't have the Payload/Range of the U.S. Navy's current fighter (F-14) and won't be superior in Air-Air to the next generation coming out now! (i.e. Rafale, Typhoon,etc.) The U.S. Navy would have been much wiser to upgrade a small number (80) of F-14's to D standard until the JSF became available!(or something better?) Thats like spending more to get less! Which, is the hole Tomcat argument in the first place!
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 26th December 2001 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Typhoon and F-14
Scooter, your original question concerned a comparison of the Super Hornet, Rafale and the Mig-29SMTK. We have, thanks to Harry, a drawing of the Mig with his assurances that it will be on a par with the Rafale and will screw the SH. A number of Rafales are apparently aboard the CDG undergoing operational trials. It remains to be seen how successfull these trials will be. As Vortex pointed out, there is no GAO to audit this process. The Super Hornet in contrast, is in full sqn service and will go to sea shortly.
The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground role as we have all seen. Even if it does turn out that the Super Hornet is only equal to the C/D, in the hands of the USN it be no less capable. The Rafale has yet to prove it is effective at sea, nevermind superior to the Hornet. At the moment the Mig is only a concept and will screw no one.
The Typhoon will not enter regular service for a few more years apparenty and no navalized version is planned at the moment unless someone here knows otherwise so at the moment it isn't relevant as far as your original question is concerned.
Regards
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 26th December 2001 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: wow..you have the actual manual
"How thick is that "book"?So, the engine is still 22,000lbf uninstalled thrust. Do you have the installed thrust figures for a CD model where the uninstalled thrust is rated at 18,000lbf? That would've put things into perspective. Again, not only is Installed thrust important, but the actual thrust curve versus airspeed and altitude is very important too."
That figure was given to me by a Navy tech on another forum. The "Device" is integral to the F414 so I think the thrust figure would be unchanged in another airframe. The same person who stated the 20,800 lb figure placed the F404 EFP's thrust at 17,700 lbs.
By: Anonymous - 27th December 2001 at 01:27 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Typhoon and F-14
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-12-01 AT 01:37 AM (GMT)]So what Sauron is basically saying is the F-18E/F is the best aircraft because it will be part of a US force that will protect it and hide its shortcomings with more inflight refuelings.
Thank you for basically repeating what I said above in post 21:
"It has less capability than both of the aircraft it replaced, it has all the latest gadgets and is insulated by being part of a war machine that is powerful enough to absorb its weaknesses, but it really is a second class weapon."
I am sure this is all a conspirisy by Cheny and Rumsfield so that they can show that the carriers are useless and it is better to use B-2s launched and landed in fortress america rather than have vulnerable CVNs floating around despite the fact that they keep US sea lanes of communication open and are available to threaten most countries at a few days notice.
"The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground role as we have all seen. Even if it does turn out that the Super Hornet is only equal to the C/D, in the hands of the USN it be no less capable."
You just don't get it do you?
Yes the Hornet can drop bombs.
A Tomahawk cruise missile could probably do the same job at much longer range and without an enormous support fleet of jammers and refueling aircraft.
Of course it would be less flexible, but we have seen in the past that Civilian convoys and airraid shelters for civilians can be bombed by accident even when there is a human in the loop.
Being great at dropping bombs will be little consolation when they return to find their carrier on the bottom.
"At the moment the Mig is only a concept..."
Mig-29Ks have been built and fully tested. The SMT upgrades are being applied to Mig-29s in Russian service now. There is nothing "theoretical" about it.
The reason the -K did not beat the Su-33 (apart from considerable political power) was because the Russians didn't want an Multirole fighter bomber, they wanted an aircraft to protect the fleet and the carrier from ships and aircraft... ie AAMs and anti ship missiles, with unguided bombs and rockets for warning shots at smugglers and illegal fishing if necessary.
The extra range, larger warload and longer range radar and missiles made the Su-33 the right choice despite being a larger aircraft that reduced the number of aircraft on board which is already at a premium. This suggests they saw protecting their billion dollar ships was more important than being able to bomb some poor country that annoys them.
Besides their focus was more on anti ship warfare to take on US carriers rather than doing what the US CVNs do to little countries and that is something that you haven't taken into account. Not every carrier owner needs to have strike aircraft but the ability of aircraft to overwhelm ships shows interceptors are necessary to defend the fleet.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 27th December 2001 at 11:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CVBG logistics
"As to the multiple "phantom" vectors, if a large airforce really want, playing with a CVBG is very likely with high speed inbound dashes and then retreat...then it's a question of how much supplies a CVBG have for a week. With long range land based high performance fighters proliferating, more and more countries can do that. You don't have to fire a single round and you can prevent a CVBG from doing the original plan. Anytime a CVBG feels threatened, it'll back off a bit or slow down before proceeding unless an all out war is declared. But, that's going to be more and more difficult. No nation in their right mind would want to take the US on, but definitely they can play assymetric warfare to slow it down or "spook" it without even firing a shot at each other. Decisive warfare in the future will take shorter and shorter and any delay is going to cost."
Sorry Vortex but youre not making much sense there! Are you suggesting that by playing dogging tactics an aggressive force could deplete the resources (I'm assuming you mean spares and fuels here) of a CVBG built round a full-up US type carrier? If that was the case Vortex how do you think that the USN kept the two carriers on station of the Vietnamese coast back in that war or how the RN managed to keep two very much smaller carriers supplied at the end of an 8000km logistics chain in the South Atlantic. Fleet UNderway REPlenishment (UNREP) is an operational art which is as vital to blue water navies as every weapons system they posses. The best navies are those who show proficiency in this, uncool, unglamarous and bloody backbreaking art.
Thus keeping a CVBG operating, even at relatively high optempo's is fairly routine. If you have a big enough air group then its not even necessary to tax the ponces...sorry, pilots, that much. Besides, it'd be a relatively easy matter to discourage this airborne cat and mouse game through RoE changes or by speed running and AEGIS destroyer or two, under EMCON, onto the threat axis when no-ones looking }>. The ships may not be able to shoot but the "attacking" aircraft may have to be stood down for a couple of days to have theyre ejection seats cleaned :D.
Steve
Posts: 2,282
By: Harry - 27th December 2001 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CVBG logistics
Sauron,you'd be better off by simply saying "Mig-29 sucks because it's russian" and "F/A-18 rulez becoz it's American"
>>The Super Hornet in contrast, is in full sqn service and will go to
>>sea shortly.
>>The regular Hornets have been used extensively in the air-to-ground
>>role as we have all seen.
And this is supposed to make it superior?:D
>>At the moment the Mig is only a concept and will screw no one.
I'm sorry but this one has been extensively tested.Like GarryB said,both the -K and SMT upgrades have already demonstrated their capabilities and advantages and a combination of both would naturally be excellent.
>>We have, thanks to Harry, a drawing of the Mig with his assurances
>>that it will be on a par with the Rafale and will screw the SH
I'm sorry but if you're saying that I have based my opinion on the capabilities of the SMTK purely on the drawing,I suggest you'd better actually read and understand people's posts and a few facts instead of just throwing your narrow minded and blind personal opinion at us.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 27th December 2001 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Mig
Harry, Garry, anyone, supply us all with a picture of a Mig-29 currenty at sea on a carrier.
Regards
By: Anonymous - 28th December 2001 at 03:39 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The Mig
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 28-12-01 AT 03:52 AM (GMT)]" Harry, Garry, anyone, supply us all with a picture of a Mig-29 currenty at sea on a carrier."
WOW... so the Sea King helocopter is better than the F-35 V/STOL fighter!!!!!!!!!
How about this link:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fighter/mig29k.html
Which shows the Year deployed to sea as 1993 which is of course when the prototype first sailed on the Kuznetsov.
Attachments:
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 28th December 2001 at 04:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Mig
Garry, thanks for the photo altho its not quite what I had in mind. I finely found some information that suggests that the first delivery to India is scheduled for late 2002. Based on the details provided in some of the previous posts I was beginning to think I was incorrect and that some had actually been delivered to the Indian Navy.
Regards
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 28th December 2001 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jonesy..
the multiple threat to a CVBG with the "cat and mouse" game is extrememly seriously today. Your example of faulklands and Vietnam is already yesterday's problem. The new threat is exactly the availability and proliferation of high performance long range fighters and ASMs. The NVAF didn't have that and look what the Argentinians did with a handful of so so Exocets in today's standard. The idea is NOT to combat the US forces directly, but to "threat" our HVAs. In the cold war, to "threat" means to destroy, but today to "threat" simply means put it out of the equation for a few days or weeks. And exactly my point is even with the relatively poor performing SEtendards with "short" ranged Exocets, the RN's carrier battle group had to be situation much further. SEtendards was at the time the only relatively long ranged high performance strike aircraft on the Argentinian list.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 29th December 2001 at 00:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Vortex
What you are describing, Vortex is a concept now fashionably labelled Virtual Attrition. That is that an opfor could remain just inside our peacetime RoE's and lead us on a merry dance whilst achieving their strategic aims elsewhere.
In reality this is nothing new as people have been using deception to achieve tactical and strategic suprise since the Trojan Wars and probably even further back than that. The answer to it is in good intelligence (if you are so blessed to be able to find it) and excellent comms and awareness (if youre not!).
I was not using either the falklands or the carrier stations off Vietnam to illustrate this principle. Rather that you seemed to believe that using feint tactics that a carriers' supplies could be exhausted to a point where the CVBG's operational readiness could be impaired. I was using those prolonged, high intensity, deployments to indicate that this was very definitely not the case.
The issue with the Argentine Exocets isnt so much that the Argentines did anything especially brilliantly (despite the excellent performance of theyre aircrews). Rather that the RN were not set up for expeditionary warfare and hadnt previously considered the AM.39 a threat that needed defending against. As a member of the upper echelons once said "We werent prepared to defend ourselves against Exocet because the Russians dont have Exocet".
Anyway, the lessons from that campaign have echoed around the world now and no nation possesing a carrier would deploy it without some form of organic AEW (possibly excepting Brazil as I'm not sure what theyre inventory is in this regard, anyone?). Thus hostile air power is very much easier to counter.
Youre post also seems to insinuate that you think the ground based air force would have all the fun. Typical jp-head bias there Vortex, shame on you :-). I can assure you that the handbook includes some very nifty tricks that can have aircraft wandering over tracts of empty water for hours (very boring for pilots, I believe!) or getting very unpleasant suprises when they do find ships!.
One of the best of these, to illustrate, was a story told to me by a former USN radar officer. His CVBG was operating within shore based air surveillance range of an unfriendly nation and everyone knew it.
So, very simply, all they would do was to have all launching aircraft transit to a spot 60 miles offset from the carrier at very low alt (below opfor radar coverage) then pull up and, in turn, have all returning aircraft head to the same spot and descend as if landing, making the return transit once again below "hostile" coverage. This "spot" duly travelled in parallel with the battlegroup and naturally to the other side appeared to be the position of the CVBG's carrier.
Unfortunately for the Marpat aircraft sent out to sneak up on the US carrier the "pull-up" position was actually occupied by an AEGIS cruiser and at least one other vessel (memory dims!).
Suffice it to say that if the "Virtual" warfare had escalated the carrier would have been quite free to go about its business and the MarPat squadron have been short by a couple of aircraft. Aircraft are certainly a very great threat to shipping but the playing field is a great deal more level than many people suspect!.
Regards,
Steve
By: Anonymous - 29th December 2001 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE:
Don't forget context Vortex.
Remember at the time the Sea Harrier was a largely untested design and they were outnumbered by about 10 to 1 by the Argentine AF which included Mirages'.
If the Argentines had BVR missiles things might have been very different.
Of course if the RN had kept their old carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers it would also have been different, but despite the scorn poured on small non cat equipped aircraft carriers without any fixed wing air power I really don't think there would be any British flags in the Malvinas now.
Sauron
2002 actually surprises me.
Only one year away.
The boat they will be embarked on will not enter full service until at least 2009-2010, but I guess practice time is needed both for pilots and maintenance and support guys.
The Mig-29 is already in service with India so most if not all of the spares and serviceing will be done in India.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 29th December 2001 at 01:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
interesting story.
you see, that's what this forum is for....of course deception is one of the oldest must in any battlefield, but Jonesy, you've forgotten that not once in the history of warfare was single or double digit casualties would become the end of an military campaign. Losing an HVA today is much worse than losing an entire fleet like in the days of Pearl Harbor. As to the deception story, it's a double edged sword. To be prudent is to take sufficient risks to achieve surprise, but no doubt during real crisis, you sure the captain of that carrier would risk all that just to offset by 60 miles and "trap" some fighter bombers? I think more realistically, once a threat is known or "perceived" the carrier will move much farther offshore and the escorts will employ layered defense/decoy much like what the British did in the Faulklands in order to protect the flag at all costs. In such a case, what if the Argentinos have something on the order of a Su30 class fighter that was able to perform a hook manuever and come from the south? And simultaneously there's a frontal "phantom" threat and then another group is able to attack from NEE of the carrier (where Vientecinco de Mayo should've been). The exact point on this post is to address why the F-18E/F. Yes, it's a strike fighter, but that's only when area defense is secured. The JSF will be the first strike package when there are no air superiority. The EF has much better reliability than the F-14 with much lower MTBFs and the acceleration is needed exactly to counter the fact that there's only ~20 available air superiority fighters on a CVBG. The other side simply has to make their trick work just once, and that's enough to send the CVBG farther away. I highly doubt that in the forseeable future, "powerful" nations (Britain, Franch, US, Russia, India, and China) is going to pound directly at each other. But, you can sure bet on the national interests to collide no matter how much diplomacy. They will fight each other indirectly much like what the US and USSR had done during the cold war. Remember not even the Soviets have this kind of high performance threat until the Tu-22M showed up, while today's Su-30/34 class fighters are much more deadlier. Tom always said about finding a Carrier is really tough, he's right, but you can't assume that you are not spotted, because you don't know that either. Since this is not 1:1 war anyways, the "enemy" had all the time and rights to tract you since technically you are not at war with each other until somebody fires that first bullet. (technically a foreign navy can shaddow the CVBG legally and openly once it leaves port and enters international waters).
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 29th December 2001 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Vortex
off this topic slightly but did anyone (especailly johnsey) ee that documentary on channel 4 about the t21 and t42 ships down in the falklands. very scary how the uk could loose a t42 to an attack of A4s armed with iron bombs!
good points being made here
rabie :9
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 29th December 2001 at 05:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: RN losses
Rabbie, given the confined nature of the waters the RN ships found themselves in and the fact that the A-4's used the surrounding hills to mask their approach until they were close enough to make an effective run at the RN ships using iron bombs, the outcome shouldn't be a suprise to anyone. The Skyhawks were in their element against RN ships that were designed to operate in the North Atlantic hunting Russian subs.They were not designed for D day.
Regards