It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the F-18?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
After reading through the article on Global Security on the F-18, I started to wonder why I (as a tax payer) pay 39 million dollars for such an "average" fighter. I will admit it is an attractive aircraft, but aesthetics alone do not impress me.

Before the F-18, every navy fighter that came before it had something to offer, or something that made it stand out compared to the equivalent fighters of there day.
F-14 -The ability to engage strategic aircraft at 100 miles, variable geometry wings make for great low speed handling, a must for a carrier born A/C

F-4 - Good bomb truck(12,500), 2nd rate fighter. High speed, long range.
F-9f - The navy`s first jet fighter, High speed, good maneuverability, range was limited on early jet A/C

Now the F-18. Average Bomb load(13,700 pounds), relatively short range, less than impressive maneuverability (cept roll rate) Average cruise speed, but a slow max mach(1.6)

On the plus side the F-18 has great avionics, but lets face it, the US would put great avionics on a -172 just to make it a gimmick box. We also put some great pilots into the cockpit. This alone will make the difference when fighting the 2nd rate pilots like the ones US has been facing for the past 25 years. But what if we have to fight a better trained and equipped country (China)?
IMHO the F-18 is no match for the Su-3x series, and the JSF may not be enough either. In a perfect world, I think the F-23 would be perfect, but in reality its a bit out of price range for the Navy.

Any thoughts?




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
the advantage of the f-18 is that it is the only plane in the world that is a dedicated fighter plane and an attack plane at the same time. not just an attack plane that can fight or a fighter that can attack.

Justin



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
the advantage of the f-18 is that it is the only plane in the world that is a dedicated fighter plane and an attack plane at the same time. not just an attack plane that can fight or a fighter that can attack.

Justin


Until the eurofighter came along.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
And the Gripen, and possibly the Rafale too.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
And the Gripen, and possibly the Rafale too.


Yes all true, however, the F/A-18 was ins ervice well before that. As far as I know, the Rafale is the only navalized version of those threee mentioned as well.

But at anyrate, the -18 is as most naval fighters a decent compromise to fit naval requirements. Best fighter ever produced? Not a chance but it suits the USN's needs and several other countries as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
uuhelpus,

First off, the F/A-18A/B/C/D is old news. It is no longer in production and it's costs are thus irrelevant. The F/A-18E/F costs considerably more than 37 million.

That said, bluntly, the USN has screwed up every fighter procurement effort they've engaged in since the F-4. With the possible exception of the VAX (A-7) they have done the same with their attack types.

Congress got tired of paying for their constant failures and so after the A-12 and AX got cannet, they got desperate and designed a new fighter aircraft in a minimum timeframe and (again) avoided most of the oversight process by calling it an F/A-18 modification rather than the F-19 which is should have been.

Since the jet they based the effort upon was itself an aerodynamic abortion and always will be, and since (among many 'rewrites' of the design justification) the F/A-18E/F was claimed to be 'based on the known quantities of Hornet-1 aerodynamics', is it any wonder that junk-in:junk-out ensued?

>>
F-14 -The ability to engage strategic aircraft at 100 miles, variable geometry wings make for great low speed handling, a must for a carrier born A/C
>>

The turkey is almost impossible for a novice to bring aboard on a /good day/ without functional DLC and autothrottle. At night with a heaving deck and you cannot do it with less than old hands and 1,200hrs. The massive separation of thrustlines and the pancake effect among other things demanded a digital flight control system which the USN sat on until what, 5 years before retirement? That it was such an unsafe platform that they STILL went through with the mod says lots about the vagaries of VG as a slow-behind-boat machine.

As for 100nm shots. IIRC, the longest that the Phoenix has ever killed something at was 73nm. What this means is that if you are facing a threat with nuclear tipped AS-4/6 cruise missiles with ranges on the order of 350-400nm; your _typical Tomcat_ is going to still be shy of engaging with all TWO of it's onboard Phoenix in the time it takes for the Russians to make it an arrow not archer contest from a standing FORCAP position, 150nm and significantly less than 2hr out.

WHETHER THE BADGERS AND BACKFIRES DIED AT THAT POINT THEN BECOMES MOOT.

Mind you, you can 'cheat' by taking a squadron out 700-1,000nm and killing the bad guys on the backs of a fleet of whales so that the bombers die still in transit. But then you can do that with a Hornet or a Phantom too.

The difference being that a carrier group is a helluva lot harder to hide and runs away from a localization at less than 40knots (less than 25 if it's escorting a REFORGER). While the Russians had both numbers, nukes and RORSAT on their side.

>>
F-4 - Good bomb truck(12,500), 2nd rate fighter. High speed, long range.
>>

Well handled, an F-4J or S will easily take a Tomcat. The Israeli's laughed their asses off when they trialed the jet against A-4 and Mirage platforms. Conversely, the F-4 is a /lousy/ 'bomb truck' in USN service because carrier limits restrict it from using outboard 370's and it has almost no smart weapons access. Any jet which is restricted to iron weapons and rockets at a time it's USAF equivalents are using LGB and HOBOS is NOT a 'good bomb truck'.

>>
F-9F - The navy`s first jet fighter, High speed, good maneuverability, range was limited on early jet A/C
>>

Couldn't tell you, wasn't there. I would personally say that the compareable landbased airframes had superior wing sectional aerodynamics and probably vastly lower operating weights. While the development of the Fury series based on the F-86 aeros says a lot.

>>
Now the F-18. Average Bomb load(13,700 pounds), relatively short range, less than impressive maneuverability (cept roll rate) Average cruise speed, but a slow max mach(1.6)
>>

None of the things you mention really matter as determinative factors in a fighter's quality. A GBU-39/BRU-61 combination gets you more bombs on one pylon than an F/A-18E/F can likely carry on all four if it wants to make range. Or have suppression/A2A weapons as part of the mix.

Mach 1.6 is useless if it starves you of fuel to the extent that you're a mission kill. Which is to say that supersonics is most justified in the distances it lets you cover in a given timeframe rather than it's combat+ factors.

Relatively short range is an issue but you only need look at USN _LIES_ about the maximum bringback, assymetric 330 carrige and Hornet-1 'incompatibility' with 460-480 gallon tanks to realize that this too is a fixable problem.

If 'fixing things' is what you are interested in doing.

>>
On the plus side the F-18 has great avionics, but lets face it, the US would put great avionics on a -172 just to make it a gimmick box. We also put some great pilots into the cockpit. This alone will make the difference when fighting the 2nd rate pilots like the ones US has been facing for the past 25 years. But what if we have to fight a better trained and equipped country (China)?
>>

It does? The APG-65 gave nothing but trouble throughout it's gestation in both close and long range modes. -As a system-, it was later compromised almost completely, to the Russians. The APG-73 has similar stability and processing problems, especially on the F/A-18E/F.

The AAR-38/46 are the world's worst targeting pods. And the AAR-50 and ASQ-173 which cover for their shortcomings ensure that the jet will not have the option of carrying an MRM if mounted. The ASQ-228 ATFLIR is not as good as the Sniper and shows the continuing 'Service Preference' for pioneering their own ways of doing things /just to ensure/ that they are not compatible and thus 'uniquely suited' to their own needs. The ALQ-126 is ancient junk. The ALQ-165 is middle aged junk for which there are too few shipsets to equip on more than a rotation. The Hornet doesn't mount an effective towed array or MAWS.

I'm not sure how many other facets of 'avionics' truly count in a combat sense but I suppose a decent cockpit interface can at least tell you you're screwed in ten different multifunction colors.

Having said that, most honest fighter pilots will in fact tell you that /today/ the gizmology is indeed what makes the jet. That they are all driving crates whose mission effectiveness is determined by their weapons system capabilities.

>>
IMHO the F-18 is no match for the Su-3x series, and the JSF may not be enough either. In a perfect world, I think the F-23 would be perfect, but in reality its a bit out of price range for the Navy.
>>

Oh please. Give it up. The F-23 is a has been that was never proven as a naval contenduh to begin with. It has several issues that render it unlikely for CVTOL suitability (discretely podded fuselage/engines, absent centerkeel, long wheelbase, long tail:MLG fraction. No horizontal tails). And as a _USAF_ spec'd fighter you can be sure that the USN would do all in it's power to find something wrong with it, just as they did the superior F-111B in comparison to their precious Tomcat.

>>
Any thoughts?
>>

The Super Flanker in all it's many flavors deserves to eat laser from an ABL 300-400km out. For that matter so to does every 'cheap' (104 million dollar) JSF. They are systems bloated obscenities exampling a continuing habit of military mismanagement and waste, solely for the purpose of preserving a manned mission profile that is itself utterly bogus for what swinging stick brings to the cockpit.

Two years of consecutive Cope Indias has already shown that, without a _dominant_ BVR missile capability, driven by EA as much as sensor, motor pole and seeker, _no pilot_ is 'all that much better' than the rest of the world (at WVR mandated knife fighting).

The only valid response to 'who handles who' (aerodynamically) then being _who cares_.

There are fewer than 1,000 Su-27 variants -world wide- with no individual opfor state having more than 200 or so total in service. Of those, less than half are of a version sufficiently modern as to challenge a late-block AMRAAM shooter -as is-. Given that they will /never/ 'vanish from the screen' as a VLO this means that IF someone finally exports an AA-12 or SDL-10 or Astra clone capable of challenging U.S. BVR dominance.

You REALLY need only develop another bullet to beat that bar, not the airframe one.

There is no organic targeting that the USN can rely upon for strike coordination. As soon as the USAF gets their damn dirty netcentric digits in the pie, Air Dominance will get ripped from betwixt the USN's clenched fists regardless.

Lastly, given the likely proliferation of truly -effective- AAW weapons. Weapons which don't have to rely on moronic pilots with less than 60hrs per year and less than 10 aircraft on a scramble order _to the bad guys_. Weapons which pursue a threat like an airplane but have the size:cost factor of missiles (if not AAA rounds in the case of laser bursts).

The REAL question becomes: not why are we not building a better fighter. But rather WHY we are not building throwaway _bombers_.

Bombers which themselves need no training and don't care if they die, flash vaporized in burst of coherent light. Bombers which are inherently more stealthy. Bombers which can carry missiles as 'busses not trucks'. Bombers which HAVE NO MAN TO LOSE. And so are cheap enough to win wars in the face of acknowledged attrition losses.

A Flanker with all the fixings costs about 50 million each.

If I wanted to kill one, I would count the number of kills it has onboard (10-13) and divide 50 by that number + 2. The resultant 'fighter' I would design to escort those cow bombers would cost no more than 3.3 million dollars. It would have an endurance of 1-2hrs. It would be dropped from standoff 'missileer' type assets. And it's sole purpose in life would be to formate with the Flanker and explode a handgrenade sized charge beside the canopy. Multiply that by 20 individual intercepts and you should come up with 300 turboAAM and just shy of 1 billion dollars worth of expendable 'fighter' hardware.

Which should be more than enough. Because rarely do we fight airpowers with more than 20 frontline jets (certainly not better than ours) available to them and NEVER has the USN done so, alone.

Don't BS me with 'aesthetic priveleges'.

War is altogether ugly in everything but the economic gains it makes and the enemies if forever kills. Since our slaughter dogs are not /allowed/ 'morally' to do either in paying their own way through tribute and land, wasting money on new fighter designs just to employ utterly worthless Sky Knights as a military class elite is ruining all that our country stands for. For no particular end.

And that sir is what I think of 'new fighters for old'. I hope the USN sticks it in their lamp and rubs it the wrong way.


KPl.


Read _The Pentagon Paradox_ for an outline of the various things wrong with the F/A-18. And this-

www.gao.gov...

To get an initial primer on how the USN lied, cheated and stole to have their Uber Bugly. Even if it was at a cost of massive fraud of The People and Congress.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Oh dear, I was reading that post intently right up until I hit this pothole;




you can be sure that the USN would do all in it's power to find something wrong with it, just as they did the superior F-111B in comparison to their precious Tomcat.


Thats a glaring error ch and you should know better. The F14 was never in competition with the F-111B and as for it being superior, the F-14 was only created in the first place because the F-111B was an abject failure. Why would Grumman go to the expense of developing a whole new fighter when they they had the contract to build the F-111B all sewn up? Answer, because the thing was no bloody good.

If you're going to get basics like that wrong its a shame because most of the rest of it was bang on.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Waynos,

>>
Oh dear, I was reading that post intently right up until I hit this pothole;
>>

Riiiight. And we're /such good friends/ that this matters to me why again?

>>>
You can be sure that the USN would do all in it's power to find something wrong with it, just as they did the superior F-111B in comparison to their precious Tomcat.
>>>

>>
Thats a glaring error ch and you should know better. The F14 was never in competition with the F-111B and as for it being superior, the F-14 was only created in the first place because the F-111B was an abject failure. Why would Grumman go to the expense of developing a whole new fighter when they they had the contract to build the F-111B all sewn up? Answer, because the thing was no bloody good.
>>

If you want to know why you're wrong and cannot manage to ask openly, say something like 'Please Elucidate.'

Until then, try reading _Illusions Of Choice_ by Coulam.

As a starting primer:

1. The F-14 with six Phoenixs runs in what is called an 'overload waiver' condition. This means that it doesn't have the same G ratings or wind over deck requirements. The F-111B was required to perform at 'full G with full fuel and weapons'. Which at the time meant 30,000lbs of go-fur and six AIM-54. Furthermore, 'in the interests of commonality'; the USN /insisted/ that the jet perform to the period _USAF_ definition of combat G. 7.33 rather than 6.5. We'll get back to the F-14 equivalents in a minute but as a baseline, the Tomcat cannot operate (recover or launch) with the TF30 engine and adequate fuel to perform it's mission and recover with particularly nighttime reserves.

2. The F-111B had 29 'fix or no-fly' major deficiencies in it's initial evaluation. The F-14 had 43. The A-6 changed 8% from it's statistical base weight to it's final critical design review mapped out (detail design drawings) issuance. The F-111B changed ZERO. Because the USN would not write a spec for it that listed their gotta haves and wanna haves _as is typical for every military aircraft design process on the planet_. And by which the contractor starts working tradeoffs.

3. The Navy routinely /insisted/ that the Sea Vark was not carrier suitable. Yet again equally REFUSED to issue a specification by which that capability could be met /by any jet/. Until Daddy Mac got tired of their little-children-want-more-water-so-they-can-have-to-pee-and-then-a-story-please delay of game and cancelled the VAX which was shaping up to be the Boeing TFX contender as a workaround to true commonality. ONLY THEN did the USN go from 235 jets to 450 odd. ONLY THEN did they put a flag rank officer at the SPO with the authority to sign off on subjects and write a spec that had /nothing to do/ with meeting weight and performance issues. But only with yet another round of DOG'ing the program until it became one. Namely via the 'N1' set of specs which demanded 2,500lbs more fuel and 6,000lbs more structural weight to carry it.

4. The F-111B was deemed 'underpowered' yet the Navy would not mandate (empower $$-wise) P&W with a fix order becauase 'that was GFE and we don't want to mess with the system'. Eventually the engine they needed would be built, for the USAF, as the TF30-P-100 aboard the F-111F. With 35% more power in both military and burner. Squid Air did demand a /minor/ increase in thrust and reliability for the 111B/N1 that eventuated as the P-10. But only 3 years into the program with the _specific intent_ of making the jet miss the 1967 production commit decision as they wouldn't evaluate anything but the 'full production standard' Sixth Prototype (the heaviest and most delayed). Comparitively, only the first 67 of 463 intended F-14's was supposed to be built with the TF30 engine. Yet despite THREE major overhauls and at least TWO DOZEN early losses directly attributed to the specific installation of the TF-30 on that 'fighter' jet, they never did qualify the intended F401 for production. Instead they /derated/ the PW-412 engine until the Tomcat literally couldn't takeoff in a lot of wind over deck conditions _exactly similar_ to those of the F-111B. Preferring to replace JBDs and accept yet another hit on station time and safety (reserves) as a fuction of burner-always takeoffs.

5. The AWG-9 weighed 1,900lbs in the F-111B yet for the same reason, the USN would not allow Hughes to be issued a design challenge to come up with weight savings(in the F-14 exactly this challenge WAS issued and resulted in a 1,300lb production radar).

6. The F-111B was supposed to have a -8 know WOD to launch. Instead, it had a +19 knot requirement. But it _could launch_ with six AIM-54s. The F-14A could not. And indeed it's basic 'qualifying' weapons load was more akin to the F-4s, namely six AIM-7 and 2 AIM-9 (1,800bs vice 6,000lbs).

7. The F-111B landed too fast, here the USN actually screwed themselves over to the extent that they had to both add major N1 'final spec' increases to an overweight bird /and/ delay flight tests until after a 'gentlemens agreement' saw the F-111B program cancelled _before carrier suitability tests began_. Because, thanks to some ingenious flap mods, the F-111 _with six AIM-54 and a 1,900lb radar and 2,500lbs more fuel and 6,000lbs more structure_, (roughly 16,000lbs overweight) landed at 115 knots. 11 knots slower than the F-4. 20 knots slower than the F-14 would /in the same configuration/.

_Grumman_ test pilots in 1968 said it handled well in the carrier circuit. Only USN _fighter_ jocks were the only ones allowed to vote however. If the aircraft had been seen and used as a missileer (i.e. 'suitable for evaluation by attack pukes') the evaluation would have come down to an angry admiral telling a ready room full of 'career naval aviators' that they would have to lie for the good of the USN. Because flag didn't want a USAF jet. And the fighter mafia didn't want to do the mission well if they could 'dogfight instead'.

7. The F-111B was supposed to loiter 3.5 hours at 150nm (by comparison the F6D was supposed to carry /eight/ 1,300lb Eagles and stay on station 6 hours). It made THREE. The F-14 was set at a 2hr loiter at the same distance and missed by 20%. The reason was nominally that the TF30 was missing its TSFC by 5%, a reason that had also been applied to the F-111B. The difference being that this time, the USN was willing to live with it rather than demanding that everything be _exactly_ to-spec. /Keeping in mind/ that the program was dead before this OPEVAL type (pass/fail) rating could be applied, you have to understand that if the jet had been given good marks, a lot of high ranking Naval personalities would have been 'embarrassed' right out of a job (comparitively, the USN insisted that the F/A-18E/F was a 550nm strike aircraft until it was not. Then they /demanded/ it achieve 390nm. Which it did not. Before 'rewriting the rules' so that 363nm was good enough. While the F/A-18A made a 580nm flight with two targeting pods, three tanks and four Mk.83, back in 1980 or so).

If the little boys in the Squid Patrol had acted like men, they would have had the F6D /and/ the F-4H at a time when the USSR was starting to make CMs a real threat, in the late 50s. They would have effectively had a BETTER BULLET system which could put up fewer jets with more missiles and kill targets (up to 300km/185nm away if assisted by the E-2C) further away than the F-14 /ever/ did.

By the time the 70s rolled around, the entire concept behind which the Missileer mission itself was formed had been proven faulty because:

A. We were operating too close into shore to be safe even against saturation attack by even light bombers on the order of the Il-28 and Su-7.
B. The Russkies had RORSATS which made deep blue and iffy hiding spot, particularly in securing SLOCs populated by 40nm long convoys.
C. They had supersonic standoff weapons which could be fired from supersonic standoff bombers.
D. THEY STILL HAD NUKES. And the ability to use them, in Europe, before any USN CVBG could get into position to counterforce hostage 'equivalent' assets in the Soviet Union. i.e. The Russians are a landbased navy who use railroads to roll to their fights. They outnumbered us 10:1 and could afford to lose their conventional forces in HUGE numbers. While all's we could do was threaten to end the world.

Under these conditions and given that a well flown F-4 will routinely beat the anemic and spin-happy F-14 _with equal weapons_; the reality is that the Tomcat is probably one of the biggest snowjobs ever perpetrated on the U.S. taxpayer 'for the glory of the Navy'. And really, no better reason than that the USAF had the FX-15.

The F-111B could have, at least, fulfilled a useless mission while leaving funds for the F/A-18 to be properly designed as (an the 18E/F size and pylon count) F-4 replacement. Or it could have been a true 'multirole' platform that took USN tactical bombing out of the subsonic stone age as a replacement for the A-6 as well. Instead the Turkey and it's cost caused the F-4N and S programs to prolong the life of the Phantom into the 80's, long after it was past due for replacement. While the 'cheap' LWF alternative itself turned into a 40 million dollar asset that wasn't worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Either way, the F-111B was a superior mission system /because/ it could do the job as a single-squadron aircraft. Whereas it took two such squadrons of Pussy Cats to fulfill the 'FAD-F' envisioned role of a dogfighter that 'on occasion' carried Phoenix (ten hours before the world ended). Largely because the USN flew them with two such weapons each (if that) and the TSFC deficiencies and complexity of the jet prevented it from being available sufficiently enough to be a strike platform in it's own right.

Thus _the very argument_ which the USN used to cancel both the F6D and the F-111B in fact most aptly applies to the F-14.

>>
If you're going to get basics like that wrong its a shame because most of the rest of it was bang on.
>>

Blah, blah, blah. How convenient that my statements 'agree with' marketing for the 20-years-new-from-EU fighter concepts which are making more or less the same mistakes, 30 years on, in designing lightweight toy fighters without the payload:range to _protect the basing mode_ or the supercruise to _sustain the sortie rate_ in winning small-force wars. While costing so damn much that you end up with a CV draft tonnage twice the weight of a USN Lexington class. Yet unable to support more than 1/3rd to 1/5th the equivalent airwing size.

All problems which the Hornet itself 'pioneered' as much as suffered from.

But which at least we are honest enough about to have available for discussion via the open press. So that 'theoretically' (hand to eyes, searching the far horizon for a thinking ape among the moo'ing masses) we can judge the efficiency or lack thereof of our government and it's so called defense establishment. While you folks of course have 'official secrets acts' that covers everything from avionics to flight control issues on the Flubber in particular. I pity the fools that trust a Euro contractor. Because they get screwed without even a chance to look stuff up and be lied to their faces on.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Let's take a look at the F-111B, shall we?


The F-111B was already in trouble since it was seriously overweight. Takeoff weight for a fully-equipped aircraft was estimated at nearly 78,000 pounds, well over the upper limit of 55,000 pounds as required by the Navy.

The problems with the overweight F-111B were so severe that General Dynamics and Grumman were forced into a Super Weight Improvement Program (SWIP), most of the changes being incorporated into the fourth and subsequent F-111Bs. The fourth F-111B (BuNo 151973) was fitted with an escape capsule in place of the individual ejector seats that were fitted to the first three F-111Bs. However, the fitting of this capsule more than offset the weight reductions achieved by the SWIP, and the F-111B remained grossly underpowered. Range was also below specifications and could only be increased by adding more fuel, making the aircraft even heavier.

In order to correct the underpower problem and to eliminate compressor stalls (which were also problems for the land-based F-111As), the first of 32 production F-111Bs (BuNos. 152714/152717, 153623/153642, and 156971/156978) which had been ordered was powered by a pair of TF30-P-12 turbofans, each rated at 12,290 lb.s.t. dry and 20,250 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

home.att.net...


The TFX design eventually emerged as an aircraft in the 20-ton (empty) class with a maximum take-off weight of almost 50 tons. It had been intended to use titanium for large portions of the airframe to save weight, but this proved prohibitively expensive. The TFX was powered by two afterburning Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofans in the 80 kN class. The shoulder-mounted wings were attached to a pair of giant pivots, allowing it to take off, land, and loiter with a modest 16° sweep (for maximum lift and minimum landing speed), cruise at high subsonic speeds with a 35° sweep, or sweep back to a 72.5° maximum for fast supersonic dashes at more than Mach 2. Despite its high maximum speed, its modest thrust fraction (thrust-to-weight ratio) made early versions somewhat underpowered, exacerbated by compressor stalls and other engine problems that forced a hasty redesign of the engine inlets.

www.answers.com...


The F-111B was a compromise that attempted to reconcile the Navy's very different needs with an aircraft whose configuration was largely set by the USAF need for a supersonic strike aircraft, and those compromises were to prove its undoing. The B was shorter than the F-111A, to enable it to fit on carrier lifts, but had a longer wingspan (70 ft/21.3 m compared to 63 ft/19.2 m) for increased range and cruising endurance. Although the Navy had wanted a 48 in (122 mm) radar dish for long range, they were forced to accept a 36 in (91.4 mm) dish for compatibility. The Navy had requested a maximum take-off weight of 50,000 lb (22,686 kg), but Secretary of Defense McNamara forced them to compromise at 55,000 lb (24,955 kg). This proved to be overly optimistic.

Weight plagued the B throughout its development. Not only were prototypes far over the 55,000 lb limit, efforts to redesign the airframe only made matters worse. The excessive weight made the aircraft seriously underpowered. Worse, its visibility for carrier approach and landing were abysmal, and its maneuverability—especially in the crucial medium-altitude regimen—was decidedly inferior to the F-4 Phantom II.

www.reference.com...

But of course these are all lies put forth to make the F-14 look better right ch? I mean the great ch1466 knows all about everything, and is never wrong!

[edit on 3/21/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

A Flanker with all the fixings costs about 50 million each.

If I wanted to kill one, I would count the number of kills it has onboard (10-13) and divide 50 by that number + 2. The resultant 'fighter' I would design to escort those cow bombers would cost no more than 3.3 million dollars. It would have an endurance of 1-2hrs. It would be dropped from standoff 'missileer' type assets. And it's sole purpose in life would be to formate with the Flanker and explode a handgrenade sized charge beside the canopy. Multiply that by 20 individual intercepts and you should come up with 300 turboAAM and just shy of 1 billion dollars worth of expendable 'fighter' hardware.

Which should be more than enough. Because rarely do we fight airpowers with more than 20 frontline jets (certainly not better than ours) available to them and NEVER has the USN done so, alone.



Right, so your proposing an almost cruise missile based anti air weapon that will have the manouverability and speed to get into position where a small "hand-grenade" sized charge will detonate and kill the pilot?

To have an endurance of 1-2 hours, you cannot use a rocket motor, you need an engine, but to have manouverability and the power to perform the necessary manouevres, you need a rocket motor as well.

You also need a radar or IR sensor of sorts, do you intend to just have a radar sensors running from the "missileer" (semi-active) or fully onboard?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
www.usscoralsea.net...



Lt. Roy Buehler (from VF-33, we put 6 guys thru test pilot school in 2 ½ years) flew the carrier suitability trails. No one who flew the a/c was allowed to comment on the a/c's performance until the report was published. We almost got this one. Roy attempted a close-in wave-off. From the normal power setting for an approach (about 88% on each engine), the a/c landed, rolled out to the end of the wire, and the engines had not gotten to 100%. Not a real sharp performer.







so , 2 aircraft performed carrier landings by serving USN officers in 1968.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Did I say we were friends? why sould it matter to you? You presume too much, like you presume I am wrong on this, oh great infallible one.

So, in your view the Navy had a perfectly good, nay excellent, all weather long range fighter that was production ready but they just chose to scrap it and develop a new inferior system, right from scratch and make themselves wait several more years for their new equipment into the bargain whilst simultaneously fighting a war? Yeah, cos that is so much more likely than the F-111B ending up overweight and underpowered and forcing the USN to try again with something a tad less ambitious in its overall scope isn't it.

USN did want the F-111B, they were involved in the creation of the plane from the beginnings of TFX, their favourite contractor, Grumman, was responsible for its design and manufacture. There was no reason at all for them to undermine it and get it scrapped, it was their own project. There was never a point where they thought 'we can get rid of this and get the F-14' because the F-14 did not exist.

Of course I am wasting my time in even trying to put this point across so I will stop here and leave you with your biased prejudicial 'opinion'.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
ch1466, did you know that the Aussies call the F-111 the Pig? There's a very good reason for that. I used to live at Pease AFB when the 509th was there with FB/F-111s and they were the second biggest POS in the USAF. So don't sit here telling us all how wonderful the F-111B would have been and how much better than the F-14 and everything since. An F-4 could EASILY outmanuver it at medium altitudes. As a bomb truck AND a "fighter" and I use the term loosely it sucked. It was so maintenance intensive it wasn't even funny. Between Pease and Plattsburgh they lost four airplanes in three years. Three of them within one year. That included two crews that didn't get out because the ejection pod that they made such a big deal about took so long to actually eject.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
BUT


to give the `vark its due - as a bomb truck it was very good , 4000 missions in vietnam and its best day yet - GW1; the F-111F was the aircraft that should have been made years ago - a darn good aircraft , carrrying LGB and painters , and hitting tanks as well.

scrapped just after GW1 but hey



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
When they WORKED anyway.
If you had a good crew chief and lots of spares then yeah, they were good planes. Just really maintenance intensive and breaking constantly.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

>>
If you're going to get basics like that wrong its a shame because most of the rest of it was bang on.
>>

Blah, blah, blah. How convenient that my statements 'agree with' marketing for the.....

KPl.


you sound like a 3 year old man. you got lots of info ill give you that but you bite ass when it comes to arguing with a person.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

First off, the F/A-18A/B/C/D is old news. It is no longer in production and it's costs are thus irrelevant. The F/A-18E/F costs considerably more than 37 million.


Wow! That's news to me! No longer in production?
But then how come Bush offered 120 F-18s to India?

And if it's a disaster, should India accept it?
Is America palming off 'junk' to them?
I mean, what's up man?
Can you throw some light on this?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
they are producing the F-18E/F now - the older models arn`t being made.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
How many countries use F/A-18 as their only fighter plane? Since i've allways been wondering why Finnish Air Force bought Hornets to replace Drakens and Mig-21Bis. I see why to replace the old planes, but why Hornet, wouldn't F-16 or Su-27 or anything been better planes for airdefence that our F/A-18s are doing?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The F/A-18 is designed to perform in an extreme enviroment. Finnish F/A-18s have to perform in extremely cold enviroments and have to be able to land and take off from highways, roads, fields, etc. F/A-18s are designed to perform in the cold marine enviroment and the landing gear is designed to deal with the extreme forces of a carrier landing and takeoff.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join