Author Topic: 2 F-18's Crash off California Central Coast (Read 625 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2002, 11:40:34 PM »

in 1975, the ability to engage multiple targets at 100nm was crucial to 'fleet defense'. A Badger is dead meat against a mach 10 missile attacking from above. As time and technology marches on the ability to engage the enemy at greater distances from the fleet make the Tomcat even more desirable. The Cat with Two Tails was and remains an outstanding fleet defense weapon.

In it's day it was also an oustanding Air to Air weapon.. in a world of toejam, with multipe inbounds w/ escorts, havin the ability to track and engage multiple targets made the 'Last Cat' an outstanding force multiplier. Havin a RIO decreases the pilots workload and further improves it's offensive/defensive capabilities. It's variable geometry wing gives it outstanding manuverabilty thru a very large speed envelope.. in it's weight class, nothing could out-turn it.

And here it is, 35 years after it was designed, and it's still a competent airplane. It's performance in Kosovo was spectacular. It may be dated but it's still a dangerous and impressive piece of hardware.. The word still on the street in the bad guys neighborhood.. Don't mess with the Big Kitty.

Hangtime · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2002, 11:48:53 PM »

Just found this lil gem..

Quote

"The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced by its superb performance in Operation Allied Force and the strikes in Operation Southern Watch. While the Navy provided only eight percent of the total dedicated aircraft in Operation Allied Force, the Navy was credited with 30 percent of the validated kills against fielded forces in Kosovo as a result of the superb performance of the Tomcat in the Forward Air Controller (Airborne) (FAC(A)) role. Another revolutionary feature of the Tomcat is the recent Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting InfraRed at Night (LANTIRN) system software update that enables the Tomcat to acquire mensurated target coordinates that are accurate enough for GPS weapons, which is unique to the Tomcat. The Tomcat's "Roadmap for the Future"—a plan to incorporate significant performance improvements during the next four years, including through-the-weather precision strike capability—makes it the platform of choice for all-weather, day or night, deep strike." [U.S. Navy statement, 2000]

Now for some commentary from the pilots..

"I guess quite some of you who read this now know about the replacement for the F-14 ... the new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Super Bug. I am not expert enough to say if it is the better airplane for tomorrows Navy or not. I can only repeat what I have heard about it: And that makes me think that the F/A-18 is not the better fighter; One pilot only, "short" long-range, less weapons bring-back capability, never capable to be an air superiority fighter as the F-14 with its radar and the AIM-54. Nevertheless, some vote pro F/A-18, some pro F-14."

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft of today and tomorrow."

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002):
° "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
"Its the same old Hornet toejam, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

I guess the super bug is just another freakin Cheney Aw-Shit.

SirLoin · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2002, 11:57:06 PM »

Thnx Hangtime for the new desktop background..

Hangtime · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2002, 11:57:48 PM »

Anytime, Baby.

Dnil · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2002, 12:17:51 AM »

I have heard bad stuff on the superbug. Supposed to replace the A-6 and F-14 but doesn't do the job of either well at all. This is a politician bird plain and simple and unfortuneatly came about from the republicans. Cheney and Dady bush all over this. Cheney cancelled the A-6 replacement, the A-12 and daddy bush cancelled the A-6f upgrade. I am a big repub but boy did they screw the pooch on this piece of junk aircraft.

Hangtime · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2002, 12:24:55 AM »

There's more than a few of us here on Long Island that would love to chat with dick some time in a dark alley. That bastard killed the best godamned fighter manufacturing facility the navy ever had.

fdiron · « **Reply #21 on:** October 19, 2002, 03:36:19 AM »

The F14 is basically useless in todays modern combat situation. When there are U.S. troops on the ground getting wasted, an F14 isnt going to do alot of good. Sure it can carry some bombs, but its air-to-ground capabilities are very lacking. Hornets have the ability to fight their way to the target, release payload, and come home. In fact, a heavily loaded hornet blew two Iraqi fighters out of the sky, flew to target, bombed it, and returned home during the first Gulf War. Thats the kind of plane the U.S. needs. Not some 1960s designed cold war specialty machine.

As far as airframes are concerned, the F18 is a much better design than the massive F14. The F14 produces a much larger radar signature than the Fa18, and the F14 is also infamous for its single engine flat spin. I'm sure everyone here has seen Top Gun. Well I've seen footage of an F14 falling from 25,000 feet all the way to terra firma in a flat spin. Pilot and RIO had to punch out at 8k after trying everything possible to recover. The FA18 suffers no such problem.

The Cold War is over, and its time to re-assess our military needs. Time for the F14 to fade into history as an expensive plane that crashed alot and only served in some small conflicts.

RvrndMax · « **Reply #22 on:** October 19, 2002, 03:36:53 AM »

Anyone remember the Murphy's laws of Combat that floated around a few years back ?

#17 : Always remember your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

I have fond memories of my days at NAS Lemoore ... i would love to own ( and play AH ) in the WTT Simulators in bldg 43 =) . i , and most pilots i've spoken with , prefered the Lots C/D Hornets over the E/F's .

Reverend Max
Chaplain 13th SAS

Mathman · « **Reply #23 on:** October 19, 2002, 12:10:51 PM »

The F-14D could have been to the Navy what the F-15E is to the Air Farce. A deep strike and interdiction aircraft. The F/A-18 is for the close-support stuff.

From what I have read, there are two reasons why the F-14D was getting canned.

1) Hornet "mafia" promoted their aircraft and sold the US Congress a pack of lies stating that the E/F was just an upgraded F/A-18 instead of what it really is. It is an almost completely new aircraft with very little in common outside some of the internal components.

2) The F-14 community itself was perhaps an even bigger reason why the F-14 is getting shelved. They resisted, for the longest time, the very idea of hanging bombs on their plane. The combination of F-14 and F/A-18 would have given the carrier an offensive capability in a way that had never before been seen. The F-14 would have been used in the long range penetration raids and the F/A-18 would do the close support.

Oh well, regardless of whether the USN is being hamstrung or taking a step forward, the fact remains that my absolute favorite plane ever is being retired from active service. Now I know how the Phantom Phreaks felt.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #24 on:** October 19, 2002, 10:06:31 PM »

Im curious - why are some people convinced that the role of the 14D is outdated? In its role of fleet defense, its king of the hill - lightyears ahead of the Hornet by any stretch, and in addition to this - whats to say that the only reason the tactics it was meant to defend against arent being used because of the presence of the AC? I dunno about you guys - but Id much rather have a 14D flying circles around my CV than an 18 of any designation. Y'all remember the Fauklands? Im guessing the Harrier is about as capable of a fleet defense fighter as the Hornet.

IMO, the F18 is a compromise in every aspect. Just a money saver.

Tumor · « **Reply #25 on:** October 19, 2002, 10:50:37 PM »

Good reading.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm

P.S. Ask a Marine or Army (Infantry) dude which one he'd rather have orbiting overhead. Just to keep it fair, I've seen F-14's out-bomb (accuracy) F-16's and Tornado's... probably a fluke but who knows?

Dinger · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2002, 11:15:14 PM »

Hehe. Or ask a marine whether he'd rather have one superhornet circling overhead or two F-14s; or ask a theater commander whether he'd like planes able to deliver large amounts of ordnance onto targets behind the lines, or would be content with a few firecrackers on the lines.
Or look at that test pilot's article again, and ask yourself, "How much is he comparing the superbug to the C/D, and how much to the F-14?"

-tronski- · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2002, 11:56:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
Thnx Hangtime for the new desktop background..

Agreed...

Tronsky

Tumor · « **Reply #28 on:** October 20, 2002, 07:23:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
Hehe. Or ask a marine whether he'd rather have one superhornet circling overhead or two F-14s; or ask a theater commander whether he'd like planes able to deliver large amounts of ordnance onto targets behind the lines, or would be content with a few firecrackers on the lines.
Or look at that test pilot's article again, and ask yourself, "How much is he comparing the superbug to the C/D, and how much to the F-14?"

A theater commander doesn't have to worry about the USN delivering large amounts of ordinance and one Super Hornet is as good as two F-14's in a CAS role. Most Marines I've talked to would just as soon have a Harrier overhead

.

The F-14 is an awesome aircraft and has always been the one I look upon with a sense of awe. The F-15E is in the same category (and a far more capable aircraft), but in reality... the F-14 is becoming a less than attractive option to maintain in the grand scheme of things. I think it would be great to see the F-14 kept on-line, maybe it will but I doubt it. If your bombing targets a great distance away, the legs on an F-14 are a great selling point, but think about it... how often are F-14's going to be sent on a mission of that sort as the primary means of delivering the bombs due to distance? We can launch B-1's, B-52's and B-2's from the States or prepositioned locations to achieve that... with precision. For air superiority... the F-14 stands out (or did). With todays detection capability and weapons, the F-14's speed is no longer a necessity, thats just how it is. When the last F-14 is mothballed, it truly will be a sad day, however it will have absolutely 0 negative effect on our capability to conduct the same mission.

fdiron · « **Reply #29 on:** October 20, 2002, 09:33:05 AM »

There must be some problem with the F14, look at the large proportion of F14 crashes in the last 5-10 years.