F14 vs F18F

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"

rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.


Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is doubtful.

As I understand it the problem with the F-14 is maintainability,
it just needs to many hours of maintenance for each flying hour.

Keith

The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

Keith Willshaw
Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is
doubtful.

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.

Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----
"M" *@*.* wrote in message ...
The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

Keith Willshaw
Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is
doubtful.

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.

In article , "rstro"
wrote:

Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----

Major, major differences in flight profile and therefore airframe stress.

Like comparing a long-haul 18 wheeler with a short track race car.
The race car takes a tremendous beating everytime it goes out.
The 18 wheeler is in a much more benign environment.

(Although I do have a through-the-cockpit photo of a Buff in low
level training in Tenessee(?). I don't think they even train for that
mission anymore.)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.

You have to keep in mind, that the F-18C/D offered to Finland and
Switzerland at the start of the 90's had a new radar (APG-73) and more
powerfull engines (F404-402 EPE) then the then current version of F/A-18C/D.
And they were offered with then modern weapons AIM-9 M / AIM-120 B and self
protection systems ALR-67 / ALE-47 / AN/ALQ-165. I don't know what they
offered with the other planes, but I doubt it was as current.

Don't forget that many countries value economic spin off as a high
priority, not just bang (in the military sense) for the buck.

Brendan


"tadaa" wrote in message ...
The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability (not
sure on this one).

Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.

In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
F-14 less so.

The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall scheme
of things.

R / John

ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18
can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability
(not
sure on this one).

Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.

In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
F-14 less so.

The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
of things.

R / John