The F14 vs what we are doing now

i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

wrote in message
oups.com...
i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of
course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to
grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the
fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the
advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill.

Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The
Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much
it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing.

Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM?

R / John

neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver. And your point about
energy is absolutely
true- It's fairly easy to bleed down to zero knots pointing the nose
and most of
our guys try to stay away from that - the hornet is still a decent
vertical fighter -
I haven't been all that impressed with the Eagles vertical capability,
can't speak
for the tomcat as I'm sure I'll never get a chance to fight one. Your
comments about
hornet bleed rate and energy addition are also true, one of the hugest
shortcomings.
As for the anchoring comment, I agree - I'd rather have the extra mach
and altitude
to put on an AMRAAM shot than unlimited alpha anyday - that's where the
eagle shines
and I imagine the tomcat as well. I'd have to say that the jet I have
been most impressed
with are the newer block bigmouth Vipers for manoeuverablity- truly eye
watering t/w.
John Carrier wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of
course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to
grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the
fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the
advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill.

Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The
Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much
it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing.

Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM?

R / John

In article .com,
wrote:

neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver. And your point about
energy is absolutely
true- It's fairly easy to bleed down to zero knots pointing the nose
and most of
our guys try to stay away from that - the hornet is still a decent
vertical fighter -
I haven't been all that impressed with the Eagles vertical capability,
can't speak
for the tomcat as I'm sure I'll never get a chance to fight one. Your
comments about
hornet bleed rate and energy addition are also true, one of the hugest
shortcomings.
As for the anchoring comment, I agree - I'd rather have the extra mach
and altitude
to put on an AMRAAM shot than unlimited alpha anyday - that's where the
eagle shines
and I imagine the tomcat as well. I'd have to say that the jet I have
been most impressed
with are the newer block bigmouth Vipers for manoeuverablity- truly eye
watering t/w.

Do everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
They are a true force multiplier.

And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
will change soon.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article .com,
wrote:
:
: neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver.
:
o everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
:They are a true force multiplier.
:
:And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
:will change soon.

Canada tends to be funding limited (their government won't give them
enough money). They're just now (slowly) getting A+ upgrades, I
think.

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.




assuming you are fighting on his ground.

observed:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.

If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

Paul Michael Brown wrote:
observed:


AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.


If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient
days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-
it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or
a laser, or anything like that. It usually involves disrupting the
gathering or passing of information (jamming your radar or your radio,
for example), but generally does not do any physical damage in and
of itself- hence non-kinetic. Non-kinetic attacks attempt to defeat
a target, as opposed to destroying it.

See

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...e_Rethinks.htm

for a short discussion on electronic warfare as a non-kinetic capability.

Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call

wrote:

:i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
:the eagle
:in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
:generally regarded
:as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree.

Which squadron?

:you need to remember
:sustained turn
erformance is but one measure of fighter capability.

And not exactly a great one these days, either, since if you end up in
a knife fight you've probably already screwed up.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

hey, good to see guys are still chatting away - i'm currently flying
with 416 squadron in cold lake- no flying for me but we did do a 4 v
unk DCA mission in
our new sim - i think it ended up being 4 v 12 mig 29 which was pretty
cool. the sim is great for bvr work and the idea is eventually to
network outside of the
existing 4 ship capability to sims on other bases in Canada and the US
for lfe type stuff. Our Hornet is basically upgraded between an A+ and
a C, in that
we had no need for the EPE engine in that we didn't incorporate the
airframe weight additions that the C model did. All I can say is that I
can't imagine ever
fighting in the legacy model - we kept some for NORAD work and the
capability difference is huge. your comments about getting into the
booth are pretty
true - guys tend to view a mission as a failure of red air gets inside
of decision range or abort range for sure (bogeys excepted of course).

Part 1 of the upgrade is complete for about 1.5 years. it consists of
OFP 19C, APG-73 radar, AN/APX-111 combined IFF interrogator/txpdr
(awesome
piece of kit) , GPS, AIM-120C5 (nice!). the jets are just starting to
go away now for part 2 which is colour DDIs/ digital moving map, JDAM,
Link-16 (huge
jump in capability there) and JHMCS. We are also picking up new flir
pods ( I heard today most likely litening 2 and most definitely not
ATFLIR, which
according to our marine exchange pilot, sucks. We were also on track to
get ASRAAM as our high off boresite missile but I think that is on the
back burner
for now.