By: Jonesy
- 29th December 2001 at 19:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: interesting story.
"you see, that's what this forum is for...."
Couldn't agree more Vortex! Nice to have a thorough, relatively rant free, debate on a topic.
"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."
Nope, I'm very aware of that. In the Falklands had we lost a carrier that would have been the end of the show. Although that would have been for operational reasons not the political ones I think you're talking about. Even so I dont know if the political inability to accept losses, demonstrated by certain western nations, applies so heavily to naval warfare. The images of ships sinking must seem more impersonal than, for example, images of dead and wounded soldiers or still-smouldering bits of chopper fuselage?.
Certainly the USS Cole incident, whilst provoking justifiable outrage, seemed not (from watching on this side of the pond) to result in any drastic US foreign policy change which you might expect.
"As to the deception story, it's a double edged sword."
My point exactly - I was merely clarifying that there are two teams on the pitch and both have theyre respective strengths and weaknesses!
"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?"
Yes, I am sure. Feeding a few fighter bombers to a SAM trap is just the icing on the cake though.What the battlegroup commander wants to do is force the opponent to react predictably i.e when they opponent is deploying against his "carrier" contact he's also depleting his own local fighter strength.
With good timing and a suitable tactical situation the carrier could sneak inshore and strike at the C3 assets and airbases that had coordinated and launched those fighter strikes in the first place. With AWACS support and a decent ranged fleet air defence fighter it could also be possible to arrange a fighter sweep to ambush the depleted attack aircraft returning from the SAM trap strike.
Depending upon the opponent, removing twenty or thirty of his advanced strike fighters from the board could even provide local air superiority for a reasonable time period. So taking the initial risk of running a very simple deception could well pay off into attriting the airbases threatening his group thus reducing theyre efficiency and leesening theyre threat potential and providing the security of local air superiority for possibly enough time to get up to some more mischief.
"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."
The RN Flag staff in Operation Corporate were not up to speed on the possibilities offered by embarked naval aviation. The top bloke, Sandy Woodward, was a former submariner and actually is on record as stating that he felt his long range air defence rested on the Sea Dart missile system. Fabulous but there you go.
Anyway the situation facing the RN fleet in 1982 was one where they had no AEW and therefore only limited ability to monitor the air environment around the fleet, let alone much farther out than that, so the only prudent option really was to make it as hard as possible for the Argentine strikers to get at the big ships. With modern AEW, especially something like a Hawkeye up, there is no need for such a restriction on navigation.
"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)"
If we were facing the threats outlined with what we had in 1982 we would probably never have tried to recapture the Falklands! Things would have been incredibly difficult.
My only answer is that we would have had to stay a long way away from the Falklands until we could neutralise the Vientecinco de Mayo group then keep as much distance between the Task Force and the Sukhoi bases as possible. Remember that the amphib landing phase of Op Corporate was only meant to take place after the Armada and Argentine AF had been taken out of the picture. Once it was obvious that that wasnt going to happen so we landed anyway!
Today we'd TLAM their airbases a couple of days before the Task Force arrived and keep an AEW chopper on station covering possible threat axes 24hrs a day!
"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."
So if the Super Hornet is a second rate air-air fighter compared to the Tomcat and is inferior to the F-35C as a strike platform please tell me what its for? Would it not have simply been more efficient to stretch the Tomcat out until the all F-35C carrier air wing could be realised?
By: Vortex
- 30th December 2001 at 00:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 00:26 AM (GMT)]Jonesy, the EF is not inferior to the F-14D in many respects. If we accept the F-14D as the baseline and then compare it with the EF, you'll see that the EF is only inferior in a few things. The EF has a lower top speed(if the F-14D's inlet ramp is unlocked), shorter range compared to a sub-sonic "cruise" configured F-14D, radar range (thanks to the powerful but extremely large APG-71), and the Pheonix missile system. Other than that, i believe the EF is superior in every aspects. Namely acceleration, climb at combat weight, bring back, smaller on deck foot print, much lower RCS, much better MTBF, lower maintainence per flight hour, and much superior high AoA and roll rates. Note these are based on inherent design capabilities, rather than which one has head mounted displays or AESAs since you can mount those things on almost any plane.
As to why not wait for the F-35B (isn't B the naval version, or i screwed up)? Well, the F-35B is a much more stealthy but limited payload platform(still a lot of deadly load :-) ). Sure, they'll get pylons, but, it is still a class lower in "tons" than the EF. Remember that the JSF requirement is cost driven. In order to achieve that, the inherent flight characteristics is only on par with the ~F-16CD, block50/52. The F-16 have better turning performance, but not pointing performance than the F-18CD. And except in transonic acceleration, the EF is better than the CD (TWR being ~same, even if i take your engine specs at face value, the combined extra thrust is still ~6,000lbf, which is the ~difference in the empty weights with the EF getting extra internal tankage instead of the draggy and pylon using external fuel tanks). Remember, the F-18CD's baseline transonic acceleration is even better than the F-15C! The only problem with the EF i have from the beginning is why not freshly redesign the outter portion of that stupid wing(that's hardly a cost saving piece to retain and i'll bet the engineers are smacking themselves in the face). At least have the option of putting an AMRAAM on the tip and then a smaller pylon to hold either another one or a AIM-9X. The problem with the EF is they tried to stuff 3 heavy hard points there, well the end result is that they are placed too closed together for bulky loads. There's the source of all the major problems. hey, 5 heavy pylons is plenty enough and still got room for 4 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM9X. The respected A-6 and Bucaneer only have 5 heavy plyons (counting the bomb bay as one). But as is, it's still a very leathal fighter and the capability is here now. Look at Rafale, because it's not an airframe based on experience, it's load out is still rather limited and unexpanded. The last and only French supersonic naval fighter is an American design. No matter how much these MIG lovers say, the Mig-29A-Z is still much short legged in comparison. Note i said, in comparisons, don't get all mad about it...Garry :-)
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 30th December 2001 at 01:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
i really try to stay out of f-14 vs f-18EF disscusion but if you think "the EF is only inferior in a few things" then i must post this (also ihave the time and have pleanty of beer at hand :-))
The EF has a lower top speed(if the F-14D's inlet ramp is unlocked) - ok so it goes slow but you haven't said slower than the C/D as well as the f-14, but IMHO speed isn't that important.
shorter range compared to a sub-sonic "cruise" configured F-14D, - huh isn't that in english it cna't go very far comparde to an f-14?, it seams that range is very important these days ith tanker assets stranied, no KA-6, the usaf using booms, etc
radar range (thanks to the powerful but extremely large APG-71), - well would that not be importnat when your defending the fleet ??? - the treat of the old soviet bombers may be gone but the usn is scared of going too close to china and being in enclosed places where the opostion can get hold of anti ship missles eveneasier today.
and the Pheonix missile system - well with the amraam you could say that the phoniex is not needed and with people liking to get a posotive id then a 100km BVR missile is prehap OTT
Other than that, i believe the EF is superior in every aspects. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
the devlopment cost was more than upgrading / building f-14Ds, quiete a few of the above points are pretty major, herd of the wing droop problem ,herd of the affect of cramming so much on you get nowhere, etc, etc (people have gone on in great detail - see tom cooper's essay on the aircombat forum).
quiete simply the f-18E/F is defficent in many MAJOR areas when compared to the aircraft its replacing - the f-14 (a,b,d) and f-18c/d - though these aircraft are NOT faultless
your prp f-18EF points ARE valid and worthy of disscusion (i'm not going for the f-14D was/is GOD the f-18EF is shite line?)
acceleration - i wouldn't know how important this is (tell me more please) but sounds good
climb at combat weight - sounds good to me
bring back - i've read some GAO line saying the navy isn't letting the current f-18c/d bring back theiur max so this mught not as great as it sounds - but stll sounds good
smaller on deck foot print - well with the decreasing number of planes on the carrier (from 80 or so to 70 or so nowadays - and it takes big ol thing like the e-2 and used to tke the ra-5 and a-3 which look big), anyway all the carriers are ewither the latest oil fired ones, or nuke ones that are very big anyway. IMHO not relevant.
much lower RCS - with all the stuff on hard points and it being frontal only it dosen't seam that important - if you want stealth then the no hardpoints JSF sounds good to me
much better MTBF - what does MTBF mean ???
lower maintainence per flight hour - VERY IMPORTANT PRO FACTOR -i cna't deny this one can i
much superior high AoA - sounds good to me
much superior roll rates - sounds good to me
head mounted displays or AESAs - they are good and as you say should be put on evey plane if you can
And now for what i would have done :-
well obviuosly the 400 or so f-14Ds would IMHO(and the facts seram to point that way) cheaper and better than the E/F. when this was done the JSF would provide the stealth, etc, etc, which the usn needs. you think the f18-ef will be better than the JSF in some IY(your)HO, are you sure?
the f-35B (i am also unsure - as i've herd people call this "B" for the stovl one) i think wil be very stealthy when it wants to be the first strike mode and then you just have to look at the f-117a and think that in this role it dosen't need to carry that much. of course is seams limited in payload (don't you think the f-18 is?) but i think for the rest of the time you'll have the hard points on.
whats wrong with the JSF being at a low price (cheaper than the SH susposedly?) and being able to match the performance of the f-16 block 50.
after this you go on to say "the EF is better than the CD ", so its not slower, more expensive, etc, etc ? }>
you then say the E/F wouldn't use wing tanks "the EF getting extra internal tankage instead of the draggy and pylon using external fuel tanks)", the GAO says you would and i think so too - so you haven't got any saving on drag.
what is "transonic acceleration" and is it important, etc ?, you mention it a lot.
i agree with you on the e/f should have been a more extensive redesign if i had to improve on the c/d.
"The problem with the EF is they tried to stuff 3 heavy hard points there, well the end result is that they are placed too closed together for bulky loads. There's the source of all the major problems." - yup, i agree here too, but i thinkthere are other problems out there.
ypu then go on to refer to the a6 and bucanner - and talk about then only having 5 pylons but as far as i can tell these pylons could carry a load of stuff, while the e/f is not carrying all that much on each plyon due to the bulky load point and range.
"But as is, it's still a very leathal fighter and the capability is here now." and so is the f-14D for less $$$
"Look at Rafale" - ok a french pnae built cos the frenchbuy french - not that bad when ocmparded to it predessesors (f-8 and super etendard), "because it's not an airframe based on experience", huh since when did an airframe need experiance, and if so what about the tomacat ?, has it not got experiance ? "it's load out is still rather limited and unexpanded"" ok so what, the french are already putting on better engines and radar and i think hte e/f's load is limited.
"The last and only French supersonic naval fighter is an American design." and the french have only every had one supersonic fighter, so what is your point here ???
Then you finish by slagging the mig29K (whatever after designation you want), which in terms of replacing the harrier for the indians is better IMHO, i wouldn't know about its performance but the us isn't going to go and sell the indian anything now is it ???
hope that is clear, not too mant typos and spelling mistakes, etc.
hope i haven't pissed anyon off too much, there is no beer left now so good night.
rabie :9
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 30th December 2001 at 03:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 03:16 AM (GMT)]Geez Rab, am I your dictionary now? ;)
MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure, a common measure of reliability.
MinMiester
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th December 2001 at 03:24Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 03:40 AM (GMT)]Rabie
MTBF = mean time between failures... ie the regularity of failures... the higher the number the better (ie a MTBF of 6 means on average every 6 hours of use ends with a failure, so using for 18 hours should statistically result in about 3 failures. )(real failures are unpredictible and this is calculated on a monthly or yearly basis where after say 10,000 hours there were x number of failures so 10,000 divided by x = MTBF. As problem areas are identified and corrected MTBF usually goes down from fairly high numbers initially.)
Vortex
If the Mig-29 was to be used on a US carrier with a steam catapault its payload and range would be the same as the land version which is quite respectible in the -SMT version. It already has a HMS and off boresight missile.
There would be no discussion if we restricted ourselves to carriers the size India intends to buy as neither the Rafale nor the F-18ABCD or the more recent "F'd up" version would get airborne with a pilot from it.
For the Indians the Mig-29x will have longer range, higher speed, larger warload and many other advantages including better navigation and avionics (western) then its predicessor the Harrier. For the Russians the improvement is even more dramatic over the Yak-38 and Yak-38M. (the Su aircraft not an option for such a small carrier).
For the french the Rafale is an improvement over their other carrier planes.
You cannot say the same for the hornet in its abcdef versions.
Cheaper to operate is all you could realy get away with saying and growth potential perhaps too, but with the structural changes to the EF then any aircraft has growth potential.
The first post asked for a comparison of three aircraft, not three supporting airforces, or carriers. Take away the "cover" the Hornet would get from the rest of the US armed forces and it is plain to see that the US navy has gotten an Accountants plane... the cheaper option of one jack of all trades master of none to replace two masters.
This is all very ironic as it doesn't seem to have been all that cheap to design/test and build... just cheap to use and maintain.
", don't get all mad about it...Garry"
I'm not mad ;-)
(BTW I've just noticed Min has answered your question too Rabie... the test will commence in 1 hour and will be of 3 hours duration during which you will answer 10 of the 20 questions in Essay form of a minimum of 3 pages each... no pressure :-))
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 30th December 2001 at 07:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
Rabie, why do you imply that the the F-14 upgrade costs would be low in comprison to the F-18E/F? Where are you getting this from? Could you be more specific and advise us where this information comes from and what the upgrades would be?
It seems to me that the GAO indicated that the upgrade of approximately 250 F-14's back in the 1994/5 time frame would cost about $42mil each and would still result in a F-14 less cabable than a F-18C much less a F-18E. As the original cost per unit was around $38mil per unit not including subsequent engine upgrades and other changes, we could be talking $80mil plus per unit. This figure didn't entail any of the significant airframe modifications that have seen proposed elsewhere which could bring the cost per unit into the $100 mil range. I know we are in the realm of speculation here, but given that actual final costs often exceed original estimates, I think that F-14 upgrade costs have been understated by a significant amount.
Regards
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 30th December 2001 at 12:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
1) cheers min
2) cheers garry - but i don't like test }>
3) sauron - you have the f-14 already so that cost doesn't count (your sraping them now), now i think he cost is going to be $50 or $60 million for the E/F (cos the usmc won't buy it - its in some gao report) so thats stil $28 million cheaper. you say the tomcat D is not as good as the f-18C, well the e/f isn't susposed to be replacing the c/d but the f-14 and i think the the f-14 is a better fighter and LGB carryer than the c/d/e/f
ok everyone
rabei :9
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 30th December 2001 at 19:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
Rabie I did not say the F-18C was better than the upgraded Tomcat. The GAO concluded that, not me. You seem to put great stock in the GAO's conclusions when it suits you. Otherwise you ignore them.
I agree that the original cost of the F-14 is not an issue. I showed it simply to clarify what the ultimate cost per unit would be. What is relevant, is that the additional costs estimated by the USN to be approximately $42mil per unit, is far greater than the $21mil which I believe was quoted here in the past. The USN concluded that the result would not be worth it.
One can only imagine the costs involved in some of the more extensive proposals such as the AST-21 and the ASF-14 or the proposals made by the retired Admr P. Gillcrist and former Grumman engr R. Kress, to enlist the help of MIT and university grads to help redisign the F-14. New engines, new wing and glove, flaps and slats, canards, fly-by-wire, stealth-enhancing additions, victored thrust, etc. Who knows what the cost would be? I don't think $21mil would cover it.
Perhaps this should have been a separate topic.
Regards
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 30th December 2001 at 21:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
yeh some of those "extras" are OTT.
i do "selctivly" take the gao reports }> , which i suspose is a bit out of order
rabie :9
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd January 2002 at 23:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Vortex- I have issues with two of your points. (MTBF and RCS) The MTBF of the F-14D and F/A-18E/F are very close. When Mc Donnel Douglas was trying to sell the Super Hornet to the Navy back in the late 80's and early 90's. It went out of its way to point out that the Super Hornet would have a much lower MTBF than the F-14. Otherwise it would be much cheaper to maintain and operate. Which, was true to a point. As the GAO later pointed out that the Super Hornet did have a much lower MTBF than the F-14A Tomcat but, when it was later compared to the F-14D Super Tomcat is was almost even! (slight edge to the SH)The older Tomcat suffered a much lower MTBF due to its earlier TF-30 engines and 70's vintage radar and electronics! Both were replaced with modern equipment in the Super Tomcat! The RCS point is stretching the true too! When a Super Hornet is clean it is very stealthy compared to the Tomcat. Thought, when you add pylons, stores, fuel tanks, etc. your stealth is gone! In a fleet defense mission or a CAP what would be your weapons load? The Super Hornet would need 3 tanks, 2-Sidewinders, and between 8-10 AMRAAM's missiles! The Tomcat would take 2 tanks,and between 2-4 Sidewinders, and 4-6 Sparrow* and/or Phoenix's missles! Still the Tomcat would have more time on station! Your RCS is gone and the APG-71 radar would locate you first and more than likely kill you first! (Note: The Tomcat could also detect the Super Hornet in a steathly mode by using its IRST which, the Super Hornet has no defense!) Many of the Super Hornet supporters are good at using mirrors to distort the F/A-18E/F's advantages but, the fact is they just don't back them up!!!
Scooter
*F-14D could easily be equipped to fire AMRAAM's and was planned to but, was cancelled do to to budget cuts?
By: Vortex
- 4th January 2002 at 12:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Scooter...the F-14D have way more parts than an F-18E and you're saying that it has near parity MTBFs? So, if you normalize by the number of parts, the F-14D is actually more reliable per part? I find that very hard to believe. Also about stealth, in terms of RCS, the biggest problem on the F-14D is the intake that leads directly to the fan blades. That by far is more problemsome than anything else, including external loads. Misleading? Please write the load outs in the "respective" way. ie, your 2-4 sidewinders and 4-6 Pheonix is suggesting a possible load of 4 sidewinders and 6 Pheonixes, also in this kind of comparison, how come the Ef needs up to 10AMRAAMs to be comparable to a F-14D? Besides, I specifically said in effect comparing something that can be put on both aircraft is nonsense...ie, you don't have to say the F-14 can be fitted with AMRAAMs. In that case, of course we can't stick the APG-71 into the EF and expect same performance, but the converse is true where we can most likely put hte AESA (APG-79?) on the F-14D. But, most baseline aerodynamic performances probably can't be altered too much in terms of performance ratios. In that case, the baseline EF is superior in almost all respects (i didn't say all and specifically when the D uses minimum sweep to get that efficient high AR wing). But notice that once the F-14 wants to go transonic or supersonic, that wing have to sweep and the range advantage starts to go down until it reach disadantage at supersonic speeds. The D is also much less agile at supersonic speeds since it's full sweep dictates a very "stiff" pitch axis. We all pretty much agrees that at low and slow, the EF is quite superior. In fact it's more superior than the CD, yet people just focused on the fact that it has ~parity in TWR and accelerates slightly slower than CD at high transonic to supersonic.
By: seahawk
- 4th January 2002 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
It seems obvious to me that the MBT of a Tomcat must be higher then the MBT of an E/F. The swing wing alone must lead to more problems then the conventional E/F wing.
On the discussion which plane is better : During the afghanistan campaign the F 14 was the most used plane (with exception of the S-3 who clocks a lot hours as a tanker). The was mainly to the following reasons :
* longer range
* 2 man cockpit
* Lantrin proved superoir to the targeting pod on the Hornets
* longer loiter time
The E/F will take away most advantages of the F 14 when it enters fleet service. But still I´m thinking that the E/F is a failure. Simply because it offers no huge improvements over the current fleet. (except for costs :-))
New
Posts: 129
By: wolfkiller
- 4th January 2002 at 13:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
i believe the rafale is more agile, with the canards and all.
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th January 2002 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Sounds like smoke and mirriors to me? Just for your information the AESA could be married to the APG-71 but, the APG-70 or APG-71 won't fit in the Hornet! As for being superior at low and slow. I have no doubt! That said, so was a Zero vs a Corsair in WW2. You may want the Zero but, I'll take the Corsair any day!
By: Vortex
- 5th January 2002 at 01:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-01-02 AT 01:19 AM (GMT)]Scott, you should understand the relationship between the radar and it's dish. Who said you can't stuck an APG-71 into the EF, i said in essence that it's not easily do-able because it's simply a much larger radar in terms of "black boxes" while the performance degradation is obvious. And i also said the reverse with AESA is rather easy for the F-14D since it got enough size.
New
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn
- 7th January 2002 at 02:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kurt's comments..
Do you know anything about the very well-informed Kurt.P? I am enjoying some very lengthy (and time consuming) discussion with him on the Fighter Community forum. His essays are often inspiring and you can't help but learn a thing or two, opinions aside.
BTW, everything I have read suggests that the Mig-29SMTK will indeed have the four point 'K' wing, the internal IFR probe probably not, and I think the 3-view of the bolt-on probe is accurate. IMO, the SMTK = SMT with the K wing, and come other navalised features of the K.
Regards, Glenn.
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 7th January 2002 at 18:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
:7 i too have just got into a "short" (by kurt stnadards) essay thing with kurt. all i know is he is very pro UAVs and not so pro the USN.
rabie :9
New
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn
- 7th January 2002 at 23:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
He is also the acronym king! Man, if I wasn't as half read as I am I wouldn't know what he was talking about.
Pro UAV - no kidding, every post almost has a mention.
By: Vortex
- 8th January 2002 at 01:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
too bad he don't understand that UAV is just as hyped as CFD at the present time...maybe 20 years later. Of course you always need a first generation to get the better second generation and so on...
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 9th January 2002 at 00:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
Well it took 100 posts, but I think we can all agree that based on any reasonable measure of utility, the Super Bug is the clear winner and will get even better in future.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 29th December 2001 at 19:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: interesting story.
"you see, that's what this forum is for...."
Couldn't agree more Vortex! Nice to have a thorough, relatively rant free, debate on a topic.
"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."
Nope, I'm very aware of that. In the Falklands had we lost a carrier that would have been the end of the show. Although that would have been for operational reasons not the political ones I think you're talking about. Even so I dont know if the political inability to accept losses, demonstrated by certain western nations, applies so heavily to naval warfare. The images of ships sinking must seem more impersonal than, for example, images of dead and wounded soldiers or still-smouldering bits of chopper fuselage?.
Certainly the USS Cole incident, whilst provoking justifiable outrage, seemed not (from watching on this side of the pond) to result in any drastic US foreign policy change which you might expect.
"As to the deception story, it's a double edged sword."
My point exactly - I was merely clarifying that there are two teams on the pitch and both have theyre respective strengths and weaknesses!
"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?"
Yes, I am sure. Feeding a few fighter bombers to a SAM trap is just the icing on the cake though.What the battlegroup commander wants to do is force the opponent to react predictably i.e when they opponent is deploying against his "carrier" contact he's also depleting his own local fighter strength.
With good timing and a suitable tactical situation the carrier could sneak inshore and strike at the C3 assets and airbases that had coordinated and launched those fighter strikes in the first place. With AWACS support and a decent ranged fleet air defence fighter it could also be possible to arrange a fighter sweep to ambush the depleted attack aircraft returning from the SAM trap strike.
Depending upon the opponent, removing twenty or thirty of his advanced strike fighters from the board could even provide local air superiority for a reasonable time period. So taking the initial risk of running a very simple deception could well pay off into attriting the airbases threatening his group thus reducing theyre efficiency and leesening theyre threat potential and providing the security of local air superiority for possibly enough time to get up to some more mischief.
"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."
The RN Flag staff in Operation Corporate were not up to speed on the possibilities offered by embarked naval aviation. The top bloke, Sandy Woodward, was a former submariner and actually is on record as stating that he felt his long range air defence rested on the Sea Dart missile system. Fabulous but there you go.
Anyway the situation facing the RN fleet in 1982 was one where they had no AEW and therefore only limited ability to monitor the air environment around the fleet, let alone much farther out than that, so the only prudent option really was to make it as hard as possible for the Argentine strikers to get at the big ships. With modern AEW, especially something like a Hawkeye up, there is no need for such a restriction on navigation.
"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)"
If we were facing the threats outlined with what we had in 1982 we would probably never have tried to recapture the Falklands! Things would have been incredibly difficult.
My only answer is that we would have had to stay a long way away from the Falklands until we could neutralise the Vientecinco de Mayo group then keep as much distance between the Task Force and the Sukhoi bases as possible. Remember that the amphib landing phase of Op Corporate was only meant to take place after the Armada and Argentine AF had been taken out of the picture. Once it was obvious that that wasnt going to happen so we landed anyway!
Today we'd TLAM their airbases a couple of days before the Task Force arrived and keep an AEW chopper on station covering possible threat axes 24hrs a day!
"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."
So if the Super Hornet is a second rate air-air fighter compared to the Tomcat and is inferior to the F-35C as a strike platform please tell me what its for? Would it not have simply been more efficient to stretch the Tomcat out until the all F-35C carrier air wing could be realised?
Regards,
Steve
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 30th December 2001 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 00:26 AM (GMT)]Jonesy, the EF is not inferior to the F-14D in many respects. If we accept the F-14D as the baseline and then compare it with the EF, you'll see that the EF is only inferior in a few things. The EF has a lower top speed(if the F-14D's inlet ramp is unlocked), shorter range compared to a sub-sonic "cruise" configured F-14D, radar range (thanks to the powerful but extremely large APG-71), and the Pheonix missile system. Other than that, i believe the EF is superior in every aspects. Namely acceleration, climb at combat weight, bring back, smaller on deck foot print, much lower RCS, much better MTBF, lower maintainence per flight hour, and much superior high AoA and roll rates. Note these are based on inherent design capabilities, rather than which one has head mounted displays or AESAs since you can mount those things on almost any plane.
As to why not wait for the F-35B (isn't B the naval version, or i screwed up)? Well, the F-35B is a much more stealthy but limited payload platform(still a lot of deadly load :-) ). Sure, they'll get pylons, but, it is still a class lower in "tons" than the EF. Remember that the JSF requirement is cost driven. In order to achieve that, the inherent flight characteristics is only on par with the ~F-16CD, block50/52. The F-16 have better turning performance, but not pointing performance than the F-18CD. And except in transonic acceleration, the EF is better than the CD (TWR being ~same, even if i take your engine specs at face value, the combined extra thrust is still ~6,000lbf, which is the ~difference in the empty weights with the EF getting extra internal tankage instead of the draggy and pylon using external fuel tanks). Remember, the F-18CD's baseline transonic acceleration is even better than the F-15C! The only problem with the EF i have from the beginning is why not freshly redesign the outter portion of that stupid wing(that's hardly a cost saving piece to retain and i'll bet the engineers are smacking themselves in the face). At least have the option of putting an AMRAAM on the tip and then a smaller pylon to hold either another one or a AIM-9X. The problem with the EF is they tried to stuff 3 heavy hard points there, well the end result is that they are placed too closed together for bulky loads. There's the source of all the major problems. hey, 5 heavy pylons is plenty enough and still got room for 4 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM9X. The respected A-6 and Bucaneer only have 5 heavy plyons (counting the bomb bay as one). But as is, it's still a very leathal fighter and the capability is here now. Look at Rafale, because it's not an airframe based on experience, it's load out is still rather limited and unexpanded. The last and only French supersonic naval fighter is an American design. No matter how much these MIG lovers say, the Mig-29A-Z is still much short legged in comparison. Note i said, in comparisons, don't get all mad about it...Garry :-)
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 30th December 2001 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
i really try to stay out of f-14 vs f-18EF disscusion but if you think "the EF is only inferior in a few things" then i must post this (also ihave the time and have pleanty of beer at hand :-))
The EF has a lower top speed(if the F-14D's inlet ramp is unlocked) - ok so it goes slow but you haven't said slower than the C/D as well as the f-14, but IMHO speed isn't that important.
shorter range compared to a sub-sonic "cruise" configured F-14D, - huh isn't that in english it cna't go very far comparde to an f-14?, it seams that range is very important these days ith tanker assets stranied, no KA-6, the usaf using booms, etc
radar range (thanks to the powerful but extremely large APG-71), - well would that not be importnat when your defending the fleet ??? - the treat of the old soviet bombers may be gone but the usn is scared of going too close to china and being in enclosed places where the opostion can get hold of anti ship missles eveneasier today.
and the Pheonix missile system - well with the amraam you could say that the phoniex is not needed and with people liking to get a posotive id then a 100km BVR missile is prehap OTT
Other than that, i believe the EF is superior in every aspects. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
the devlopment cost was more than upgrading / building f-14Ds, quiete a few of the above points are pretty major, herd of the wing droop problem ,herd of the affect of cramming so much on you get nowhere, etc, etc (people have gone on in great detail - see tom cooper's essay on the aircombat forum).
quiete simply the f-18E/F is defficent in many MAJOR areas when compared to the aircraft its replacing - the f-14 (a,b,d) and f-18c/d - though these aircraft are NOT faultless
your prp f-18EF points ARE valid and worthy of disscusion (i'm not going for the f-14D was/is GOD the f-18EF is shite line?)
acceleration - i wouldn't know how important this is (tell me more please) but sounds good
climb at combat weight - sounds good to me
bring back - i've read some GAO line saying the navy isn't letting the current f-18c/d bring back theiur max so this mught not as great as it sounds - but stll sounds good
smaller on deck foot print - well with the decreasing number of planes on the carrier (from 80 or so to 70 or so nowadays - and it takes big ol thing like the e-2 and used to tke the ra-5 and a-3 which look big), anyway all the carriers are ewither the latest oil fired ones, or nuke ones that are very big anyway. IMHO not relevant.
much lower RCS - with all the stuff on hard points and it being frontal only it dosen't seam that important - if you want stealth then the no hardpoints JSF sounds good to me
much better MTBF - what does MTBF mean ???
lower maintainence per flight hour - VERY IMPORTANT PRO FACTOR -i cna't deny this one can i
much superior high AoA - sounds good to me
much superior roll rates - sounds good to me
head mounted displays or AESAs - they are good and as you say should be put on evey plane if you can
And now for what i would have done :-
well obviuosly the 400 or so f-14Ds would IMHO(and the facts seram to point that way) cheaper and better than the E/F. when this was done the JSF would provide the stealth, etc, etc, which the usn needs. you think the f18-ef will be better than the JSF in some IY(your)HO, are you sure?
the f-35B (i am also unsure - as i've herd people call this "B" for the stovl one) i think wil be very stealthy when it wants to be the first strike mode and then you just have to look at the f-117a and think that in this role it dosen't need to carry that much. of course is seams limited in payload (don't you think the f-18 is?) but i think for the rest of the time you'll have the hard points on.
whats wrong with the JSF being at a low price (cheaper than the SH susposedly?) and being able to match the performance of the f-16 block 50.
after this you go on to say "the EF is better than the CD ", so its not slower, more expensive, etc, etc ? }>
you then say the E/F wouldn't use wing tanks "the EF getting extra internal tankage instead of the draggy and pylon using external fuel tanks)", the GAO says you would and i think so too - so you haven't got any saving on drag.
what is "transonic acceleration" and is it important, etc ?, you mention it a lot.
i agree with you on the e/f should have been a more extensive redesign if i had to improve on the c/d.
"The problem with the EF is they tried to stuff 3 heavy hard points there, well the end result is that they are placed too closed together for bulky loads. There's the source of all the major problems." - yup, i agree here too, but i thinkthere are other problems out there.
ypu then go on to refer to the a6 and bucanner - and talk about then only having 5 pylons but as far as i can tell these pylons could carry a load of stuff, while the e/f is not carrying all that much on each plyon due to the bulky load point and range.
"But as is, it's still a very leathal fighter and the capability is here now." and so is the f-14D for less $$$
"Look at Rafale" - ok a french pnae built cos the frenchbuy french - not that bad when ocmparded to it predessesors (f-8 and super etendard), "because it's not an airframe based on experience", huh since when did an airframe need experiance, and if so what about the tomacat ?, has it not got experiance ? "it's load out is still rather limited and unexpanded"" ok so what, the french are already putting on better engines and radar and i think hte e/f's load is limited.
"The last and only French supersonic naval fighter is an American design." and the french have only every had one supersonic fighter, so what is your point here ???
Then you finish by slagging the mig29K (whatever after designation you want), which in terms of replacing the harrier for the indians is better IMHO, i wouldn't know about its performance but the us isn't going to go and sell the indian anything now is it ???
hope that is clear, not too mant typos and spelling mistakes, etc.
hope i haven't pissed anyon off too much, there is no beer left now so good night.
rabie :9
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 30th December 2001 at 03:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 03:16 AM (GMT)]Geez Rab, am I your dictionary now? ;)
MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure, a common measure of reliability.
MinMiester
By: Anonymous - 30th December 2001 at 03:24 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-12-01 AT 03:40 AM (GMT)]Rabie
MTBF = mean time between failures... ie the regularity of failures... the higher the number the better (ie a MTBF of 6 means on average every 6 hours of use ends with a failure, so using for 18 hours should statistically result in about 3 failures. )(real failures are unpredictible and this is calculated on a monthly or yearly basis where after say 10,000 hours there were x number of failures so 10,000 divided by x = MTBF. As problem areas are identified and corrected MTBF usually goes down from fairly high numbers initially.)
Vortex
If the Mig-29 was to be used on a US carrier with a steam catapault its payload and range would be the same as the land version which is quite respectible in the -SMT version. It already has a HMS and off boresight missile.
There would be no discussion if we restricted ourselves to carriers the size India intends to buy as neither the Rafale nor the F-18ABCD or the more recent "F'd up" version would get airborne with a pilot from it.
For the Indians the Mig-29x will have longer range, higher speed, larger warload and many other advantages including better navigation and avionics (western) then its predicessor the Harrier. For the Russians the improvement is even more dramatic over the Yak-38 and Yak-38M. (the Su aircraft not an option for such a small carrier).
For the french the Rafale is an improvement over their other carrier planes.
You cannot say the same for the hornet in its abcdef versions.
Cheaper to operate is all you could realy get away with saying and growth potential perhaps too, but with the structural changes to the EF then any aircraft has growth potential.
The first post asked for a comparison of three aircraft, not three supporting airforces, or carriers. Take away the "cover" the Hornet would get from the rest of the US armed forces and it is plain to see that the US navy has gotten an Accountants plane... the cheaper option of one jack of all trades master of none to replace two masters.
This is all very ironic as it doesn't seem to have been all that cheap to design/test and build... just cheap to use and maintain.
", don't get all mad about it...Garry"
I'm not mad ;-)
(BTW I've just noticed Min has answered your question too Rabie... the test will commence in 1 hour and will be of 3 hours duration during which you will answer 10 of the 20 questions in Essay form of a minimum of 3 pages each... no pressure :-))
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 30th December 2001 at 07:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
Rabie, why do you imply that the the F-14 upgrade costs would be low in comprison to the F-18E/F? Where are you getting this from? Could you be more specific and advise us where this information comes from and what the upgrades would be?
It seems to me that the GAO indicated that the upgrade of approximately 250 F-14's back in the 1994/5 time frame would cost about $42mil each and would still result in a F-14 less cabable than a F-18C much less a F-18E. As the original cost per unit was around $38mil per unit not including subsequent engine upgrades and other changes, we could be talking $80mil plus per unit. This figure didn't entail any of the significant airframe modifications that have seen proposed elsewhere which could bring the cost per unit into the $100 mil range. I know we are in the realm of speculation here, but given that actual final costs often exceed original estimates, I think that F-14 upgrade costs have been understated by a significant amount.
Regards
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 30th December 2001 at 12:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
1) cheers min
2) cheers garry - but i don't like test }>
3) sauron - you have the f-14 already so that cost doesn't count (your sraping them now), now i think he cost is going to be $50 or $60 million for the E/F (cos the usmc won't buy it - its in some gao report) so thats stil $28 million cheaper. you say the tomcat D is not as good as the f-18C, well the e/f isn't susposed to be replacing the c/d but the f-14 and i think the the f-14 is a better fighter and LGB carryer than the c/d/e/f
ok everyone
rabei :9
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 30th December 2001 at 19:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
Rabie I did not say the F-18C was better than the upgraded Tomcat. The GAO concluded that, not me. You seem to put great stock in the GAO's conclusions when it suits you. Otherwise you ignore them.
I agree that the original cost of the F-14 is not an issue. I showed it simply to clarify what the ultimate cost per unit would be. What is relevant, is that the additional costs estimated by the USN to be approximately $42mil per unit, is far greater than the $21mil which I believe was quoted here in the past. The USN concluded that the result would not be worth it.
One can only imagine the costs involved in some of the more extensive proposals such as the AST-21 and the ASF-14 or the proposals made by the retired Admr P. Gillcrist and former Grumman engr R. Kress, to enlist the help of MIT and university grads to help redisign the F-14. New engines, new wing and glove, flaps and slats, canards, fly-by-wire, stealth-enhancing additions, victored thrust, etc. Who knows what the cost would be? I don't think $21mil would cover it.
Perhaps this should have been a separate topic.
Regards
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 30th December 2001 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Tomcat upgrade Costs.
yeh some of those "extras" are OTT.
i do "selctivly" take the gao reports }> , which i suspose is a bit out of order
rabie :9
By: Anonymous - 2nd January 2002 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Vortex- I have issues with two of your points. (MTBF and RCS) The MTBF of the F-14D and F/A-18E/F are very close. When Mc Donnel Douglas was trying to sell the Super Hornet to the Navy back in the late 80's and early 90's. It went out of its way to point out that the Super Hornet would have a much lower MTBF than the F-14. Otherwise it would be much cheaper to maintain and operate. Which, was true to a point. As the GAO later pointed out that the Super Hornet did have a much lower MTBF than the F-14A Tomcat but, when it was later compared to the F-14D Super Tomcat is was almost even! (slight edge to the SH)The older Tomcat suffered a much lower MTBF due to its earlier TF-30 engines and 70's vintage radar and electronics! Both were replaced with modern equipment in the Super Tomcat! The RCS point is stretching the true too! When a Super Hornet is clean it is very stealthy compared to the Tomcat. Thought, when you add pylons, stores, fuel tanks, etc. your stealth is gone! In a fleet defense mission or a CAP what would be your weapons load? The Super Hornet would need 3 tanks, 2-Sidewinders, and between 8-10 AMRAAM's missiles! The Tomcat would take 2 tanks,and between 2-4 Sidewinders, and 4-6 Sparrow* and/or Phoenix's missles! Still the Tomcat would have more time on station! Your RCS is gone and the APG-71 radar would locate you first and more than likely kill you first! (Note: The Tomcat could also detect the Super Hornet in a steathly mode by using its IRST which, the Super Hornet has no defense!) Many of the Super Hornet supporters are good at using mirrors to distort the F/A-18E/F's advantages but, the fact is they just don't back them up!!!
Scooter
*F-14D could easily be equipped to fire AMRAAM's and was planned to but, was cancelled do to to budget cuts?
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 4th January 2002 at 12:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Scooter...the F-14D have way more parts than an F-18E and you're saying that it has near parity MTBFs? So, if you normalize by the number of parts, the F-14D is actually more reliable per part? I find that very hard to believe. Also about stealth, in terms of RCS, the biggest problem on the F-14D is the intake that leads directly to the fan blades. That by far is more problemsome than anything else, including external loads. Misleading? Please write the load outs in the "respective" way. ie, your 2-4 sidewinders and 4-6 Pheonix is suggesting a possible load of 4 sidewinders and 6 Pheonixes, also in this kind of comparison, how come the Ef needs up to 10AMRAAMs to be comparable to a F-14D? Besides, I specifically said in effect comparing something that can be put on both aircraft is nonsense...ie, you don't have to say the F-14 can be fitted with AMRAAMs. In that case, of course we can't stick the APG-71 into the EF and expect same performance, but the converse is true where we can most likely put hte AESA (APG-79?) on the F-14D. But, most baseline aerodynamic performances probably can't be altered too much in terms of performance ratios. In that case, the baseline EF is superior in almost all respects (i didn't say all and specifically when the D uses minimum sweep to get that efficient high AR wing). But notice that once the F-14 wants to go transonic or supersonic, that wing have to sweep and the range advantage starts to go down until it reach disadantage at supersonic speeds. The D is also much less agile at supersonic speeds since it's full sweep dictates a very "stiff" pitch axis. We all pretty much agrees that at low and slow, the EF is quite superior. In fact it's more superior than the CD, yet people just focused on the fact that it has ~parity in TWR and accelerates slightly slower than CD at high transonic to supersonic.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 4th January 2002 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
It seems obvious to me that the MBT of a Tomcat must be higher then the MBT of an E/F. The swing wing alone must lead to more problems then the conventional E/F wing.
On the discussion which plane is better : During the afghanistan campaign the F 14 was the most used plane (with exception of the S-3 who clocks a lot hours as a tanker). The was mainly to the following reasons :
* longer range
* 2 man cockpit
* Lantrin proved superoir to the targeting pod on the Hornets
* longer loiter time
The E/F will take away most advantages of the F 14 when it enters fleet service. But still I´m thinking that the E/F is a failure. Simply because it offers no huge improvements over the current fleet. (except for costs :-))
Posts: 129
By: wolfkiller - 4th January 2002 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
i believe the rafale is more agile, with the canards and all.
By: Anonymous - 4th January 2002 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
Sounds like smoke and mirriors to me? Just for your information the AESA could be married to the APG-71 but, the APG-70 or APG-71 won't fit in the Hornet! As for being superior at low and slow. I have no doubt! That said, so was a Zero vs a Corsair in WW2. You may want the Zero but, I'll take the Corsair any day!
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 5th January 2002 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: your RE
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-01-02 AT 01:19 AM (GMT)]Scott, you should understand the relationship between the radar and it's dish. Who said you can't stuck an APG-71 into the EF, i said in essence that it's not easily do-able because it's simply a much larger radar in terms of "black boxes" while the performance degradation is obvious. And i also said the reverse with AESA is rather easy for the F-14D since it got enough size.
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn - 7th January 2002 at 02:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kurt's comments..
Do you know anything about the very well-informed Kurt.P? I am enjoying some very lengthy (and time consuming) discussion with him on the Fighter Community forum. His essays are often inspiring and you can't help but learn a thing or two, opinions aside.
BTW, everything I have read suggests that the Mig-29SMTK will indeed have the four point 'K' wing, the internal IFR probe probably not, and I think the 3-view of the bolt-on probe is accurate. IMO, the SMTK = SMT with the K wing, and come other navalised features of the K.
Regards, Glenn.
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 7th January 2002 at 18:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
:7 i too have just got into a "short" (by kurt stnadards) essay thing with kurt. all i know is he is very pro UAVs and not so pro the USN.
rabie :9
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn - 7th January 2002 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
He is also the acronym king! Man, if I wasn't as half read as I am I wouldn't know what he was talking about.
Pro UAV - no kidding, every post almost has a mention.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 8th January 2002 at 01:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Kurt's comments..
too bad he don't understand that UAV is just as hyped as CFD at the present time...maybe 20 years later. Of course you always need a first generation to get the better second generation and so on...
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 9th January 2002 at 00:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Super Hornet vs Rafale vs Mig-29K?
Well it took 100 posts, but I think we can all agree that based on any reasonable measure of utility, the Super Bug is the clear winner and will get even better in future.
Regards