Quote:
Senators Press Gates To Buy More Super Hornets
(NAVY TIMES 12 JAN 09) ... John T. Bennett
A dozen U.S. senators, including eight members of the powerful Armed Services and Appropriations committees, are pushing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to buy more Boeing-made F/A-18E/F aircraft.
In a Dec. 11, 2008, letter to Gates, Senate heavyweights Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.; Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.; John Kerry, D-Mass.; and eight others raised concerns about “a significant shortfall in the number of strike fighter aircraft” capable of operating from aircraft carriers.
I get the impression that the Marines have been burned by the F/A-18 Hornet because they have absolutely no desire to buy into the Super Hornet for some reason, even after the Navy has proven it to be quite successful
I have always opined that the Marines still need F/A-18F's to replace their F/A-18D's which aren't even cleared to deploy on USN carriers because of their unacceptable short range! The Corps could easily justify the purchase of four F/A-18F squadrons by replacing their geriatric EA-6B's with EA-18G's just like the Navy.
The cost synergies here are enormous, and the Corps will be paying a pretty penny in a bleak time to continue to operate EA-6B's after the Navy parks their own and starts operating Growlers.
Why's the Corps so stubborn on this, it's not like they have an unlimited budget in which to continue to spend?!
Oh sure, I hear that they want to go in with the Chair Force and turn the F-35 into this all-mighty EAW platform but again, especially in the Marines case operating F-35B's with less payload capabilities and no WSO, their just pissing into the wind and being stubborn, like an inverted Dick Cheney when he was SECDEF.
At least with the F-16 the Israeli's for example could turn a two-seat variant into the strike platform they desire - technology regardless as to how far it advances will never be able to replace a skilled human being in the back seat - I think some in the DOD and USMC in particular have been watching too much Knight Rider.
When I were in the Corps not too long ago we prided ourselves in using tested, tried and true equipment as we didn't have the budget to pissaway on R&D like we did with the V-22, but once the Corps did so wow, the flood-gates have been opened and oh, marvel the waste.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): I get the impression that the Marines have been burned by the F/A-18 Hornet because they have absolutely no desire to buy into the Super Hornet for some reason, even after the Navy has proven it to be quite successful
No I don;t think they where burned. This is politics. They don't want to have their squadrons deploy with the carriers as they are doing now. They know the F-35 in general and the F-35B in particular is not well liked by the Navy so the Navy will not want them operating from their decks. Where do you put ll those F-35Bs that you operate but the Navy doesn't want anywhere near it's carriers? Simple on the LHDs. No more joint deployments with the Navy.
Why do the Marines need their own air force anyway?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3851 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 1): Where do you put ll those F-35Bs that you operate but the Navy doesn't want anywhere near it's carriers? Simple on the LHDs. No more joint deployments with the Navy.
No no, the Marine Generals that be will just take the well decks out of the new LHA(R)'s so they can put in a bigger hangar deck for their F-35B's - problem solved, eh?! Except for the fact that your amphibious assault ship just turned into a WWII aircraft carrier. Since the Marines want to replace all of their Hornets for F-35B's they simply won't have enough LHD/A's to operate off of and will have to continue to operate off of full-sized Navy carriers.
The logic of operating an F-35B STOVL aircraft off full sized Navy carriers that the F-35C is custom-designed for is ridiculous waste, sacrificing F-35B STOVL penalties just for the sake of F-35B commonality - I don't buy it.
It's one thing for the Marines to replace Harrier Lawn Darts with F-35B's, but it's a downgrade to replace F/A-18's with F-35B's as opposed to F-35C's or really, F/A-18F's in this case. I think the Marines need better accountants.
Quoting Alien (Reply 1): Why do the Marines need their own air force anyway?
Many will agree that USAF flying A-10's and CAS for USArmy grunts isn't the best-case scenario, as Marine pilots are bar none the #1 preferred CAS for a Marine 0311 on the ground. But we all know how the USAF feels about the Army flying fixed winged aircraft.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1124 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3817 times:
I wonder if this will pressure the USAF to buy the EA-18G Growler since they will have no jammer assets since the EF-111 and Ea-6B will be gone with no AF prescence
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3800 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): Except for the fact that your amphibious assault ship just turned into a WWII aircraft carrier.
Too slow.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): Since the Marines want to replace all of their Hornets for F-35B's they simply won't have enough LHD/A's to operate off of and will have to continue to operate off of full-sized Navy carriers.
Don't be too sure about that. The Navy is pretty serious about not mixing models. Different capabilities, logistics, etc.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): The logic of operating an F-35B STOVL aircraft off full sized Navy carriers that the F-35C is custom-designed for is ridiculous waste, sacrificing F-35B STOVL penalties just for the sake of F-35B commonality - I don't buy it.
The Marines have some powerful allies in Congress. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): It's one thing for the Marines to replace Harrier Lawn Darts with F-35B's, but it's a downgrade to replace F/A-18's with F-35B's as opposed to F-35C's or really, F/A-18F's in this case. I think the Marines need better accountants.
Quoting Alien (Reply 1):
Why do the Marines need their own air force anyway?
Many will agree that USAF flying A-10's and CAS for USArmy grunts isn't the best-case scenario, as Marine pilots are bar none the #1 preferred CAS for a Marine 0311 on the ground. But we all know how the USAF feels about the Army flying fixed winged aircraft.
I think these two statements are related. Times have changed. What do you define as CAS? Certainly the work all of aviation is performing now doesn't really qualify. You can get just about anything to lob JDAMs and other PGMs down on targets from 15,000 feet. I think a B1 or B-52 in fact would do the job best since you have long loiter and large payloads. No, CAS really is all about getting down low and slow to provide direct support to the troops with cannon, rocket and the occasional Maverick or Hellfire missile while subjecting yourself to enemy ground fire. So while I agree with you that leaving CAS to the Navy or Air Force is not such a good idea, I question the utility of the Marines or Army for flying manned fixed wing aircraft in the first place.
Why not save the money on F-35B development/procurement (which really is not at all in the mold of the A-10 anyway) and ensure that the Navy has a full complement (four 12-14 plane squadrons) of fighters in each air wing and use the money left over to develop an upgraded AH with better armor, range and payload than the AH-1Z? The Navy then gets to do what it does best with the aircraft most suited for the mission and the Marines do what they do best with aircraft best suited for the mission.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): develop an upgraded AH with better armor, range and payload than the AH-1Z? The Navy then gets to do what it does best with the aircraft most suited for the mission and the Marines do what they do best with aircraft best suited for the mission.
The Marines via Bell helicopter scammed the taxpayers with the H-1 upgrade - they should have replaced the UH-1N's with MH-60S's like the Navy did with their CH-46D's, and then just went straight to the horses mouth with AH-64D's - they operate off a carrier just fine as the British WAH-64D's have shown. But like you say, some former Marine went to work for Bell when he got out and well, Bell's gotta get their subsidy somehow as evidently the V-22 was not enough.
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2):
Except for the fact that your amphibious assault ship just turned into a WWII aircraft carrier.
Too slow.
Oh great, even more worthless.
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2):
Since the Marines want to replace all of their Hornets for F-35B's they simply won't have enough LHD/A's to operate off of and will have to continue to operate off of full-sized Navy carriers.
Don't be too sure about that. The Navy is pretty serious about not mixing models. Different capabilities, logistics, etc.
It's a given that the Marines need the F-35B to replace ther never-had-much-bang AV-8B's, but the Marines would be better off replacing their F/A-18C's with F-35C's to share commonality with the Navy F-35C's off of CVN's, replacing their EA-6B's with EA-18G's just like the Navy is, and then replace their F/A-18D's AW squadrons for FAC(A) with F/A-18F's just like what the Navy uses. The end result with that would be a more capable and powerful Marine Air Wing, more commonality with their Navy brethren, and a bunch of taxpayer money left over.
But that makes too much sense I guess - I just can't believe the Marines can continue to spend frivolously and get away with it, especially in a Democrat trifecta Obama administration.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
As I recall, the Marine Corps plan is to get rid of or transfer a lot of TACAIR assets and responsibilities to the Navy. Current F/A-18 and AV-8 squadrons are not going to swap one for one to the F-35. The Marine Corps is trying to get away from deploying on carriers, and just deploy with the Gator Navy.
As for the replacement of the Prowlers, not sure what the plan is anymore with that.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4623 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
Air Ryan
How does buying 4 Sqns of F/A18F justify buying 4Sqns of EA18G.
I can see why the EA18G make sense.
Perhaps joint overhaul of aircraft INCLUDING EA18G would make sense.
I also do not follow the following;
"The logic of operating an F-35B STOVL aircraft off full sized Navy carriers that the F-35C is custom-designed for is ridiculous waste, sacrificing F-35B STOVL penalties just for the sake of F-35B commonality - I don't buy it".
Do you mean accepting the STOVL penalties?.
"It's one thing for the Marines to replace Harrier Lawn Darts with F-35B's, but it's a downgrade to replace F/A-18's with F-35B's as opposed to F-35C's or really, F/A-18F's in this case. I think the Marines need better accountants".
So are you in favour of a mixed F35B/C or F/A18F/F35B fleet?.
Also surely if the USMC has a need for aircraft then they need to provide something that the USN do not. IMO this means CAS from smaller ships than Carriers.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3696 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 6): The Marine Corps is trying to get away from deploying on carriers, and just deploy with the Gator Navy
And therein lies the quandary - why does the Marines Corps think they can afford their entire own separate carrier battle groups?! Aircraft carriers with no well deck for Marine amphibs that just carry Marine aircraft are nothing more than dedicated Marine Corps aircraft carriers and there should be no room in our nation's military for such egregiously unnecessary redundant platforms.
And don't even get me started on the tactical disadvantages of operating a Marine carrier group is - currently a typical MEU has either an LHD/A and two support vessels, LPH or LPA's. Let's just say the probability of an enemy submarine attack on the entire group would not be too terribly hard to imagine - there is a reason why USN CVBG's operate with a slew of picket ships from AEGIS cruisers, an entire slew of ASW hardware and aircraft, and even an attack submarine. The Navy already doesn't have enough ships as it is, let's just say this Marine aircraft carrier aspiration should have been DOA when it was first thrown out there.
The Marines work hand in hand with the Navy - that's who they are, so why all of a sudden are they so timid in continuing to operate off Navy carriers? It's not like the Navy has their own agenda, if there is a Marine MEU going ashore than where else do the Marines think the Navy is going to park their carrier battle group?
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 7): Do you mean accepting the STOVL penalties?.
Yes my bad, I mean it is ridiculous to operate F-35B's off of full-sized Navy carriers in the aspect that you are sacrificing STOVL penalties such as payload and range when you could otherwise be utilizing the F-35C's which are designed to operate off of the Navy CVN and not suffer such penalties. Since the Corps cannot fit all of their F-35B's on the current LHA/LHD's, they are still going to have to work off of Navy CVN's and they rightfully so want nothing to do with F-35B's on their carriers.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 7): So are you in favour of a mixed F35B/C or F/A18F/F35B fleet?.
Absolutely - not only is it more logical, more effective, more common with the Navy, it also happens to be significantly less expensive than the Marines current plan.
AV-8B+ = F-35B off of LHA/D
F/A-18C = F-35C off of CVN's sharing with USN in commonality
F/A-18D = F/A-18F offering CVN deploy-ability that current D models do not, while sharing with the near 500 USN Super Hornet airframes
EA-6B = EA-18G - just common sense, it expands current EAW capability, it's cheaper both to acquire and maintain, it's readily available now (no R&D needed for the EF-35B,) and it offers a tandem crew which is something that the chimerical EF-35B's will not.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 7): Also surely if the USMC has a need for aircraft then they need to provide something that the USN do not. IMO this means CAS from smaller ships than Carriers.
The history of the Marine Air Wing has always been in using what is readily available from the Navy - it's a whole new can of worms on a budget that just isn't there when the Corps starts trying to convince themselves that they need something that the Navy does not.
And there is a very good argument to be made that the USMC Harrier never offered much to the fight to begin with in order to even rate the need for a replacement - it's been nothing more than a fast moving attack helicopter coupled with exorbitant maintenance requirements; if I needed CAS and had an option of a pair of Harrier jets or AH-64D's (maybe even AH-1Z's now,) I'd go with the attack helos.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 6): The Marine Corps is trying to get away from deploying on carriers, and just deploy with the Gator Navy.
The way they are trying to do it is to push F-35Bs down the Navy's throat. If the Marines must have fixed wing air I really don't see why this has to be a problem. The Marines replace their AV-8s with a like number of F-35Bs and they give up their Hornets. The Navy then increases the number of Super Hornets (or F-35Cs) in it's air wing to make up for the loss of the Marine squadron that used to be embarked.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): The Marines work hand in hand with the Navy - that's who they are, so why all of a sudden are they so timid in continuing to operate off Navy carriers? It's not like the Navy has their own agenda, if there is a Marine MEU going ashore than where else do the Marines think the Navy is going to park their carrier battle group?
Well at least I know of one ex Marine with some common sense.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4623 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3638 times:
AirRyan
In 1985, when the AV8B entered service, there was no AH64D or AH1Z. The AH64A was brand new and the AH1W was about to enter service.
To say that it was fast moving Attack Heli is somewhat of an understatement. It flies at over three times the speed on an Attack Heli and has somewhat more punch.
The real issue is whether the USMC should operate only Heli, with the USN providing the fixed Wing F18 etc for CAS or whether the USMC need their own Fixed Wing. The former is closer to the UK model.
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3623 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): Times have changed. What do you define as CAS?
I agreed with your stated definition of CAS, above, and I believe that in regards to amphibious operations, CAS is becoming increasingly important. Because lets face it, the Corps can no longer rely on the Navy for adequate shore bombardment, that ability has simply been all but lost.
So that means any enemy units on a beach, or landing zone, will not have been properly eradicated, prior to the assault. Which means the assault force will need CAS, to respond as the they encounters enemy assets, which otherwise would have been destroyed by shore bombardment.
And in regards to the Marines operating the F-35 -- or any fixed-wing aircraft, for that matter -- it provides them with one key ability that helicopters struggle with: deep interdiction. For helicopters to successfully execute a deep interdiction mission, to destroy fixed targets, requires, at least, a CO size element, but more likely, a BN size element. ...While two, maybe one, fixed-wing fighter can perform the same mission.
Leave the helicopters to the FLOT, and let the fixed-wing eliminate the targets behind the FLOT, or any targets of opportunity closer in.
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): I question the utility of the Marines or Army for flying manned fixed wing aircraft in the first place.
Well what about the C-27? It makes a lot of sense for the Army to operate organic tactical airlift, that answers to no one else, other than the division, or corps, level.
And the same can be said for tactical recon aircraft.
Quoting Alien (Reply 4): develop an upgraded AH with better armor, range and payload than the AH-1Z?
Do you mean a new build, or upgrade over an existing model, like the AH-1 or AH-64?
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3621 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): And don't even get me started on the tactical disadvantages of operating a Marine carrier group is - currently a typical MEU has either an LHD/A and two support vessels, LPH or LPA's. Let's just say the probability of an enemy submarine attack on the entire group would not be too terribly hard to imagine - there is a reason why USN CVBG's operate with a slew of picket ships from AEGIS cruisers, an entire slew of ASW hardware and aircraft, and even an attack submarine.
The three ship Amphibious Ready Groups you are talking about are gone, replaced by Expeditionary Strike Groups. ESG consist of LHD/LHA, LSD, LPD, CG, DDG, FFG, and SSN(not sure if they are keeping this capability). Quite capable forces.
Quoting Alien (Reply 9): The Marines replace their AV-8s with a like number of F-35Bs and they give up their Hornets. The Navy then increases the number of Super Hornets (or F-35Cs) in it's air wing to make up for the loss of the Marine squadron that used to be embarked.
Thats what I was trying to say. The Marine Corps is planning on decreasing its TACAIR assets.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): The Marines work hand in hand with the Navy - that's who they are, so why all of a sudden are they so timid in continuing to operate off Navy carriers?
I do not think they are timid. The reason they deployed on carriers now is the Navy does not have enough Hornet squadrons to fill all its carrier air wings. Since the plan is for the Marine Corps to transfer some TACAIR to the Navy (i.e. stand down some Hornet Squadrons while the Navy forms new ones), then the Marine Corps should not have to deploy on carriers anymore.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3580 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): Because lets face it, the Corps can no longer rely on the Navy for adequate shore bombardment, that ability has simply been all but lost.
I agree the Navy has dropped the ball on gunfire support ....... but is there a realistic need for being able to put a mass of steel on target now? I question the need. First is there still a real need to have the capability to come ashore on a contested beachhead in large numbers? The last time the Marines did it was back during the Korean war. Have technological advances made the amphibious assault both too risky and unneeded? Doesn't vertical envelopment take its place? Based on what is known now about technology, combat, and the geopolitical situation in the world can amphibious assaults still be envisioned?
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): So that means any enemy units on a beach, or landing zone, will not have been properly eradicated, prior to the assault. Which means the assault force will need CAS, to respond as the they encounters enemy assets, which otherwise would have been destroyed by shore bombardment.
Assuming I am wrong above and there is an assault one day do you think that the Marines won't have AHs in large numbers? Do you think there will not be a full sized Navy carrier or two somewhere close by? I think that between Navy fixed wing, Marine AHs, what gunfire support there is and tomahawks or JDAMs to take out the really tough or high value targets there will be enough firepower available on the beach for the Marines to prevail.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): And in regards to the Marines operating the F-35 -- or any fixed-wing aircraft, for that matter -- it provides them with one key ability that helicopters struggle with: deep interdiction.
But again, that is what the Navy and Air Force are for. I agree with Air Ryan that Marines (and Army) provide the best CAS for the troops but interdiction is a Navair or Air Force Job.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): Leave the helicopters to the FLOT, and let the fixed-wing eliminate the targets behind the FLOT, or any targets of opportunity closer in.
I agree but just have the Marines/Army handle targets at the FLOT and have the Navy Air Force take care of everything coming up behind the FLOT.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): Well what about the C-27? It makes a lot of sense for the Army to operate organic tactical airlift, that answers to no one else, other than the division, or corps, level.
And the same can be said for tactical recon aircraft.
Well, okay, I wrote in absolutes when I should not have. I agree.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): Do you mean a new build, or upgrade over an existing model, like the AH-1 or AH-64?
Whatever works best. If the the grunts (generically speaking) think that AH-1Z is adequate for CAS then keep it and use more of them. If they think the answer then is AH-64 then they should buy them. Whatever works. Use part of the money saved by not buying F-35B to upgrade the AH force to where it can provide CAS properly..
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 12): Thats what I was trying to say. The Marine Corps is planning on decreasing its TACAIR assets.
Good news if true and the Navy gets enough planes for four squadrons per wing. This is counter to what I have been led to believe though. Could you provide a link?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3538 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): So that means any enemy units on a beach, or landing zone, will not have been properly eradicated, prior to the assault. Which means the assault force will need CAS, to respond as the they encounters enemy assets, which otherwise would have been destroyed by shore bombardment.
Quite frankly from what I saw when we went ashore in Greece as we made our way into Macedonia to support ops in Kosovo in 1999, the entire process took hours and any reasonable modern defense force would seemingly have a field day taking out painfully slow moving LCU's - even the LCAC's would be little problem for modern radar and/or infrared guided SSM's or artillery. And looking back to WWII, there were not a whole lot of beaches that were able to be taken without a fight.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 12): The three ship Amphibious Ready Groups you are talking about are gone, replaced by Expeditionary Strike Groups. ESG consist of LHD/LHA, LSD, LPD, CG, DDG, FFG, and SSN(not sure if they are keeping this capability). Quite capable forces.
I wasn't aware of that however as you say it's unclear as to if they retain this structure; no doubt the previous ARG's were as vulnerable as paper targets on Edson range going across the Atlantic.
I'm still not sure how the Navy could agree to buy into the Marines plans to make what are essentially Marine Carrier Battle Groups - all that does is take hulls away from the Navy which they are already having a hard time in accomplishing all that they are tasked with worldwide, and it directly counters the validity of the argument the Navy makes to justify the existence of the $6B+ CVN's?!
Going back to the way in which the Hornet mafia in the Navy kicked the Grumman Tomcats and Intruders out of the Navy, sometimes I think the modern Navy is full of some of the most spineless, cowardly, and toady officers it has ever been forced to live with. But then again going back to experience with some Navy CPO's, I simply cannot be surprised.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 12): I do not think they are timid. The reason they deployed on carriers now is the Navy does not have enough Hornet squadrons to fill all its carrier air wings. Since the plan is for the Marine Corps to transfer some TACAIR to the Navy (i.e. stand down some Hornet Squadrons while the Navy forms new ones), then the Marine Corps should not have to deploy on carriers anymore.
Here's an article now some six years old on the subject, but still - Marines will still not be able to field all of their TACAIR assets on the Gator Navy decks alone, so the premise that Marines will cease to operate off of Navy CVN's most certainly will not ever come to fruition.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3485 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): Going back to the way in which the Hornet mafia in the Navy kicked the Grumman Tomcats and Intruders out of the Navy, sometimes I think the modern Navy is full of some of the most spineless, cowardly, and toady officers it has ever been forced to live with. But then again going back to experience with some Navy CPO's, I simply cannot be surprised.
I have got to disagree and I am a big Tomcat/Intruder fan. Their time has passed. sure the Navy could have upgraded both and if they spent enough money gotten something superior to the Super Hornet, but at what cost? They would have been viable for as long as the SH will be but at far greater cost. Further a mixed F-14/A-6 force would not have been nearly as flexible as an all F-18 or F-18/F-35C force will be. Add to that the complexity and the maintenance issues with swing wings as well as the increased logistical footprint and looking back the Navy made the right choice. There was no way enough money was going to be available for proper upgrades and NATF. What the SH lacks in range and speed has been made up for with standoff PGMs, AMRAAM (especially the new D model) and mission flexibility.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): I'm still not sure how the Navy could agree to buy into the Marines plans to make what are essentially Marine Carrier Battle Groups - all that does is take hulls away from the Navy which they are already having a hard time in accomplishing all that they are tasked with worldwide, and it directly counters the validity of the argument the Navy makes to justify the existence of the $6B+ CVN's?!
I am not so sure how much the Marine Corps influenced this decision. Besides having a ship that actually has a 5" gun (not that it does much good) the Marine side of the ESG is not gaining much by these extra ships. This is mostly a Navy decision, to get more protection for the Amphibs, and provide the ground forces with.... well....I am not sure really.
On the other hand, I have read an article that these ESG's are alternating who is commanding them. Some deploy with an Admiral in charge, and some deploy with a Marine General running the show. Now I will say that part was definitely influenced by the Marine Corps.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): I wasn't aware of that however as you say it's unclear as to if they retain this structure; no doubt the previous ARG's were as vulnerable as paper targets on Edson range going across the Atlantic.
The only part I was not sure about was the SSN. I live in Hampton Roads, and hear about these groups on tv every time they deploy or return. For the past year or two they deploy as an Expeditionary Strike Group. Oh, and they changed the name of Carrier Battle Groups to Carrier Strike Groups.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3468 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 13): Good news if true and the Navy gets enough planes for four squadrons per wing. This is counter to what I have been led to believe though. Could you provide a link?
After doing some searching, seems the plans have changed somewhat. From what I can tell, the Marine Corps is really only standing down about 2 Hornet Squadrons. I think this has changed partly because of the Marine Corps manpower total was approved to increase by 27k. Some of the new manpower is being used to stand up two new HMLA squadrons, move one HMH to active duty, one HMLA to active duty, and I believe a VMFA to active duty.
I also read that the VMAQ's are not slated to start standing down until 2016 or later... so quite sometime for them. There should be plenty of spares out there with the Navy replacing theirs.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3457 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): It's not like the Navy has their own agenda, if there is a Marine MEU going ashore than where else do the Marines think the Navy is going to park their carrier battle group?
Yes the Navy has an agenda, they were unable to retain their own pilots, thus they decided to draft in the Marines, came up with some elaborate new combat doctrine.
Quoting Alien (Reply 9): The way they are trying to do it is to push F-35Bs down the Navy's throat. If the Marines must have fixed wing air I really don't see why this has to be a problem. The Marines replace their AV-8s with a like number of F-35Bs and they give up their Hornets. The Navy then increases the number of Super Hornets (or F-35Cs) in it's air wing to make up for the loss of the Marine squadron that used to be embarked
Let remember that the Navy controls US marine aviation, they had no problem shoving their plan on the Marines to deploy them on carriers.
Some facts that persons seem to gloss over, everyone admits that when it comes to CAS the Marines are the best, including AirRyan, then he goes off the deep end about common sense by saying it should be given to the Navy and US Airforce. If the Marines are the best what common sense reasons would you have to remove them from the fight? The US Airforce is really not interested in CAS, their best platform which they like is arugable one of the best pure fighter planes ever built - F-16 - lets not talk about the A-10 which had to be forced on them inspite of its success in Gulf War I they still wanted it gone. The Navy went to Hornets a long time ago, they never had the legs to go anywhere, so how much CAS do they train for?
The Marines from bitter experience want their own air assets above them, politically I believe they have all the heavy hitters on their side, the Navy needs to look at a long term solution to their problem of pilot retention, not a short term Marine fix. If Marine pilots do more Navy work, how long will it be before they leave the service like the Navy pilots?
The US Army to maintain force levels offered states modern equipment and up to date training to gain access to their guard and reserve, the country is now paying a heavy price because of the length of deployments that those forces now bear, the bounce from the cold war is now bouncing back.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3402 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 17): There should be plenty of spares out there with the Navy replacing theirs.
Yeah, plenty of worn out Cs and Ds.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 18): Yes the Navy has an agenda, they were unable to retain their own pilots, thus they decided to draft in the Marines, came up with some elaborate new combat doctrine.
It had nothing to do with pilot retention (as being a primary cause) and everything with that idiot Rumsfeld trying to save a buck by reducing Navy squadrons by a 1/3 and increasing the frequency of carrier deployments.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 18): including AirRyan, then he goes off the deep end about common sense by saying it should be given to the Navy and US Airforce.
I don't think he ever said that. He questioned the wisdom of using F-35Bs, but I will let him speak for himself.
I question the wisdom of using fixed wing assets for what is classic direct CAS. You don;t need an F-35 to provide support via cannon, rockets, or the occasional Hellfire. In fact helicopters make a better choice. Let the Navy and Air force drop JDAMs from 15,000 feet. Give the Marines and the Army plenty of well armed and armored helicopters like the AH-64 and put them under the battalion commander so they are at his troops beck and call. Lets start using the right tool for the job.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3303 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 18): Yes the Navy has an agenda, they were unable to retain their own pilots, thus they decided to draft in the Marines, came up with some elaborate new combat doctrine.
Pilot retention has nothing to do with it. In the case of USMC F-18 squadrons deploying with USN Carrier Air Wings it was meant to fill the gap left by the departure of the A-6.
Quoting Alien (Reply 19): It had nothing to do with pilot retention (as being a primary cause) and everything with that idiot Rumsfeld trying to save a buck by reducing Navy squadrons by a 1/3 and increasing the frequency of carrier deployments.
The decision to axe a Tomcat squadron from each carrier air wing was made under Bush 41. In the case of the A-6 they left service during the Clinton administration. Unfortanetly its replacemnt the A-12 was cancelled in 1991. As stated above that gap was filled by a USMC Hornet squadron. The only type that was retired under Bush 43 without a replacment was the S-3. Hardly 1/3 of all Navy squadrons.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): sometimes I think the modern Navy is full of some of the most spineless, cowardly, and toady officers it has ever been forced to live with.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3288 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20): Pilot retention has nothing to do with it. In the case of USMC F-18 squadrons deploying with USN Carrier Air Wings it was meant to fill the gap left by the departure of the A-6.
The only Marine A6 a/c were their ECM a/c, the Navy A6 a/c were bombers, when they retired them what exactly have they replaced them with, more Hornets, including the new Super Bug, the Marine Squadrons the Navy "drafted" included the Hornets and the A6-Prowlers, so the A6 argument on its own is not accurate. All the Navy had to do was purchase more F-18's and transit those A6 pilots to the new Super Bug, note that when they retired the F-14 they transitioned those pilots to the F-18, what's the difference? In both cases they were going from a two seat to a single seat a/c so they saved money, if they replaced their A6 squadrons with Marine's what were the Marines supposed to do, hence the new combat plan / doctrine that they came up with.
Look up the Navy rate of pilot renetion prior to the drafting of the Marine Squadrons, it is / was a big issue, note that the US Air Force now faces the same problem, all forces went down the same path, rather than institute monetary measures to increase the force levels, they went the shor route by drafting more reserve and guard elements, the civilian economy is paying the price.
I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make; Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist U.S. Navy (Ret.) wrote about those in the Navy at the time who were in favor of the Hornet and those that favored the Tomcat, but that those in the "Hornet Mafia" won out because it was the more politically expedient policy in which to take. Those Tomcat supporters who choose not to tote the party line paid for it in the matter of their careers. The political influence was strong and came from the top down.
Grumman's ties with Naval Aviation went back to the early 1930's and all of a sudden Dick Cheney comes in as SECDEF under Bush 41 and all but single handily axes the current (F-14D and A-6E) and future (F-14D+ and A-6F) Grumman platforms for the U.S. Navy, essentially forcing Grumman to merge with Northrop and cease to exist as we knew it.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 21): The only Marine A6 a/c were their ECM a/c,
That's not correct. Marine A-6E's used to comprise the VMFA(AW) squadrons that Marine F/A-18D's currently now make up. I argue that the Marines need to replace these aircraft with F/A-18F's so as to retain these VMFA(AW) squadrons and their FAC(A) capabilities, as well as being able to deploy on Navy CVN's which because of the decrepit range of the current Marine F/A-18D's, they do not deploy upon.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22): I thought that the A12 was the predecessor of the SR71.
Technically you are correct, the Navy A-12 would have been the second A-12.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3239 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): I argue that the Marines need to replace these aircraft with F/A-18F's so as to retain these VMFA(AW) squadrons and their FAC(A) capabilities, as well as being able to deploy on Navy CVN's which because of the decrepit range of the current Marine F/A-18D's, they do not deploy upon.
Back to square one, why did the Marines choose a Hornet version different from the Navy? If your contention is that the short legs is what prevents them from carrier deployment, that would be the reason why the Marines chose it, and since the Navy controls Marine Corp aviation, why did they allow it, could it be that they did not care as they had no intention of deploying those Marines on their carriers to begin with? At that time the Navy had its own pilots and was meeting all its force requirements, so if the Marines wanted to buy other Hornets or continue to use the "lawn dart" Harrier more power to them. Times have changed, they are no longer meeting their force requirements, and that requires a long term solution, not a short scale one which will cripple both the Navy and Marine aviation. If the Marines loose this fight their air component will be reduced to helicopters only, as there will be no practical way for them to maintain an air wing operating under Navy rules and regulations, once that happens, the Navy will be back to square one, however, they will then have to address the real problem, guess they hope recruitment will pick up before they hit that brick wall.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3212 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 24): If the Marines loose this fight their air component will be reduced to helicopters only, as there will be no practical way for them to maintain an air wing operating under Navy rules and regulations,
I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Marine aviation already follows Navy rules and regulations.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3252 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 25): I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Marine aviation already follows Navy rules and regulations
If Marine Squadrons are all transferred to the carriers the Marines will eventually loose their air wing, at least the fixed wing component, they will be folded into Navy squadrons and Marine air wings will be composed of helicopters only.
By going after the STOL/VTOL aircraft they are hoping to maintain a fixed wing component as they can be deployed for the various LHD's etc.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 21): The only Marine A6 a/c were their ECM a/c, the Navy A6 a/c were bombers, when they retired them what exactly have they replaced them with, more Hornets, including the new Super Bug, the Marine Squadrons the Navy "drafted" included the Hornets and the A6-Prowlers, so the A6 argument on its own is not accurate.
The Super Hornet was not avaliable when the last A-6 squadron was decomissioned. The Navy could have bought more F-18's and transitioned all the A-6 units to the Hornet instead of just one like the did. Doing so would have meant buying more C/D models however. A model that would start to be replaced by the E/F Hornet in less than ten years. Given the tighter budgets in the 90's it was more cost effective for the Navy to have a Marine Hornet squadron fill the gap. So I really don't see how pilot retention had anything to do with it.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22): I thought that the A12 was the predecessor of the SR71.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make; Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist U.S. Navy (Ret.) wrote about those in the Navy at the time who were in favor of the Hornet and those that favored the Tomcat, but that those in the "Hornet Mafia" won out because it was the more politically expedient policy in which to take. Those Tomcat supporters who choose not to tote the party line paid for it in the matter of their careers. The political influence was strong and came from the top down.
You're right I don't. That's because what you said made no sense and was a bit insulting. Are you going to try and tell me Marine officers don't play politics? In the end it was a decision made by the Secretary of Defense, who out ranks every officer in the entire US military. I fail to see how that decision and the officers who supported the Hornet makes most USN officers "spineless, cowardly, and toady".
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): SECDEF under Bush 41 and all but single handily axes the current (F-14D and A-6E) and future (F-14D+ and A-6F)
The A-6F was cancelled under Reagan. An A-6F with F404 and updated avionics would have been a huge improvment over the E model. However it would not change the fact that it was still a sub-sonic non-stealthy aircraft.
DeltaGuy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4178 posts, RR: 29 Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3231 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 21): The only Marine A6 a/c were their ECM a/c, the Navy A6 a/c were bombers
Wrong sir. They were just as mission capable as their Navy counterparts. Many Marine units flying F/A-18D's now can trace their roots back to A-6's (or F-4's F-8's in the other case)
DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3130 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 28): Wrong sir. They were just as mission capable as their Navy counterparts. Many Marine units flying F/A-18D's now can trace their roots back to A-6's (or F-4's F-8's in the other case)
Correct me once again, did the Marines replace their A6 a/c - other than the Prowlers - with the 2 seat Hornet? If they did - which is what I thought - the Marines got rid of their A6's along with or before the Navy leaving the ECM birds, mission capable yes, but their primary mission was ECM Jamming etc. not bombing missions, which is what I meant. I was never claiming that the Marines never used the A6, simply that in the time line we are now discussing, most if not all had already been replaced with Hornets.
Until the E8 Growler comes online, those Marine birds have to shoulder on, unless they follow the Air Force example and just not replace their EF-111's, have someone else do it, they probably want a ECM drone Predator, wonder how much that's going to cost.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3098 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 26): If Marine Squadrons are all transferred to the carriers the Marines will eventually loose their air wing, at least the fixed wing component, they will be folded into Navy squadrons and Marine air wings will be composed of helicopters only.
But isn't that what the Marines are currently trying to do as is - get out of their "fixed wing" F/A-18's off of USN CVN's and transition to STOVL F-35B's off of their LHD's and LHA(R)'s?
Quoting Par13del (Reply 26): By going after the STOL/VTOL aircraft they are hoping to maintain a fixed wing component as they can be deployed for the various LHD's etc.
No one is arguing that the Marines are not retaining their STOVL capability from the Harriers over to the F-35B's?
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 27): You're right I don't. That's because what you said made no sense and was a bit insulting. Are you going to try and tell me Marine officers don't play politics? In the end it was a decision made by the Secretary of Defense, who out ranks every officer in the entire US military. I fail to see how that decision and the officers who supported the Hornet makes most USN officers "spineless, cowardly, and toady".
That's absolutely right - the cowards in the Hornet mafia who succumbed to the political pressures from Captain Stabbin' Dick Cheney despite what was best for the Navy - keeping the F-14. Between the A-6F and F-14D, U.S. Naval aviation took a big step backwards when they severed their ties with the Grumman Corporation.
Those few aviators who did speak up against the plans to kill the F-14 in favor of more less, expensive (and less capable) Hornets either resigned their commissions in disgust or were ultimately forced out with early retirements. I'd take a CVW of F-14D+ and A-6F/A-12's over one solely comprised of Super Bugs as is now the case any day of the week - and I'd be able to project power further inland while parking my carriers further offshore.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 27): The A-6F was cancelled under Reagan. An A-6F with F404 and updated avionics would have been a huge improvment over the E model. However it would not change the fact that it was still a sub-sonic non-stealthy aircraft.
That's right - a huge improvement over an aircraft (A-6E) that was already a superior strike platform than that of the current Super Hornet! The only thing that even remotely begins to save the Super Hornet today is it's ability to house modern electronics/avionics and modern munitions - other than that it's an aerodynamically inferior platform that sets U.S. Naval aviation back in terms of capability.
The A-6E could sling Sidewinders and the A-6F was going to be able to sling AMRAAM's, too. Of course we all know that the F-14D was tested and cleared for AMRAAM use for reasons not wanting to up-stage the Hornet, the small amount of funding was never approved for overall use citing that the F-14's more powerful radar could sling the Navy's large inventory of Sparrow missiles much more cost effectively.
And all of those fancy electronic advancements (like AESA) could have just as easily have been added to the Grumman counterparts via subsequent upgrades and have provided for more than a healthy ROI for the taxpayers dollars; the USN only figured out just how superior the Tomcat platform could be (post-9/11) long after the it's production line was closed. And speaking of production lines, show me one article printed anywhere in the Tomcat's first 20 years of existence while it's line was still open and turning out spares that said the Tomcat was too hard and too expensive to maintain?
Super-sonic? Big deal, how often are you ever going to find a Super Hornet in reheat whilst laden in strike configuration complete with two to three external fuels tanks because it never possessed the range the A-6 had in the first place?
Stealth? Come on, the Super Hornet is far from a "stealth" aircraft even though it does possess some RCS diminishing attributes.
The decision to go with the chimerical A-12 over the A-6F was perhaps the first in a long string of myopic decisions that have directly threatened the value of the Navy's most coveted asset in their nuclear powered aircraft carriers - the ship will only ever be as good as the Air Wing on it's deck.
The A-6F was a low-risk/high-reward prospect readily available for penny's on the dollar as opposed to what the level of risk and associated R&D costs the A-12 came with; the A-6F would have provided the Navy with long-range strike capabilities it still fails to possess even to this day.
Think of just this - had the A-6F been funded the Marines would have retained their VMFA(AW) Intruder squadrons and thereby retained their ability to continue to deploy with CVW's, something that with their transition to the F/A-18D they have since not been able to do because of the lack of any useful range while carrying a payload. Talk about a retard in capabilities.
Now resting on the USS Interpid in NYC...
Quoting Par13del (Reply 30): Until the E8 Growler comes online, those Marine birds have to shoulder on, unless they follow the Air Force example and just not replace their EF-111's, have someone else do it, they probably want a ECM drone Predator, wonder how much that's going to cost.
The Marines think they skip the EA-18G that the Navy is going to transistion to and somehow make an EAW EA-35 platform towards the end of the 2010 decade with the USAF of all people.
So the USMC will be the sole operator of the EA-6B fleet after the Navy gets out of it and I guarantee it will end up costing twice as much per hour to keep that plane airworthy as any bean counter in the Marines is trying to tell the public. The Navy will be adding significant capability with their EA-18G's and be saving money at the end of the day compared to what the Marines will be spending just trying to keep their Prowlers in the air until they can barely, just barely stay intact for what by all estimates is a generous timetable for the availability of an EA-35.
The USAF will be operating a completely different model of the F-35 than the Marines will - the F-35B will be severely limited in what it can grow into as opposed to what the USAF can do with their F-35A's, and that's not even getting into the debate over the validity of a single-crewed EAW platform. Since when did the USAF and USMC go into business together, I thought the Marine Corps emblem was comprised of the Eagle, Globe, and ANCHOR?
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3004 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): Since when did the USAF and USMC go into business together, I thought the Marine Corps emblem was comprised of the Eagle, Globe, and ANCHOR?
If true, that my friend is the big problem, the Marines seem to think the Navy is not working in their best interest, go figure.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): And all of those fancy electronic advancements (like AESA) could have just as easily have been added to the Grumman counterparts via subsequent upgrades and have provided for more than a healthy ROI for the taxpayers dollars;
I think that's where you loose me. I can't see how it'd be cost effective to add AESA to aircraft that flew first in 1960 and 1970 respectively. By the time you've swapped out the wings, the engines, and the radar, what did you end up keeping?
We're seeing on this forum how hard it is for the USAF to change the avionics and re-engine its vintage 1968 C-5s and those are cargo ships with a lot more freedom to change things than an attack plane that has to land on a carrier.
As much as you blame the Hornet Mafia, shouldn't you be more pissed at the ones who screwed the pooch on the A-12? That was when the money was there to deal with a better A-6 replacement, and the USN screwed the pooch by changing the requirements every ten minutes or so.
From that point on, USN has been playing catch-up.
It's not like USN has a lot of wiggle room. They have to keep funding CVNs, SSNs, all manner of supporting shipts, aircraft, helos, etc. The USAF has it easy relative to the USN: their airfields and missle silos don't move, and things that don't move don't cost as much as things that do.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): the USN only figured out just how superior the Tomcat platform could be (post-9/11) long after the it's production line was closed.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 33): I think that's where you loose me. I can't see how it'd be cost effective to add AESA to aircraft that flew first in 1960 and 1970 respectively. By the time you've swapped out the wings, the engines, and the radar, what did you end up keeping?
AESA upgrades are not terribly implausible, the F-15 first flew in 1972 and was designed in the late 1960's yet Boeing still offer new build F-15's with upgraded AESA and avionics. I worked avionics in the Marines and we added all sorts of avionic, flight control, and counter-measure equipment to our CH-46 helicopters that went back to the 1960's. Boeing is offering new-build H-47's with quite advanced avionics and other modern hi-tech gadgets. Israel's IAI has an avionics upgrade program for the Mig-21, a plane that goes back to the 1950's.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 33): That was when the money was there to deal with a better A-6 replacement, and the USN screwed the pooch by changing the requirements every ten minutes or so.
No doubt the Navy dropped the ball with the A-12 program; Grumman even went back to the Navy in 1991 after the A-12 was canceled and offered them an A-6G which had most of the A-6F upgrades save for the engines and a few other things, but the Navy again declined. Every service branch has made decisions that later on turned out to be in error, hindsight is always 20/20 - and I think the Marines are making some decisions again in regards to the F-35 and Super Hornet that in time, history will look back upon and wish they would have done otherwise. Even today the Marines would be lying to you if they said they wouldn't rather have had A-6F's over their current F/A-18D's.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 33): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31):
the USN only figured out just how superior the Tomcat platform could be (post-9/11) long after the it's production line was closed.
Care to expand on this?
In the aspect that they only began to explore the F-14 as an Air-to-Ground platform and take advantage of it's strike capabilities long after the production line was closed. In Desert Storm for exmaple, they did only Air-to-Air and even had trouble communicating with USAF AWACS because of silly inter-service communication protocol faux pax.
Beginning in the late 1990's over Bosnia, the F-14 took on the "Bombcat" role and as they later added modern electronic components like a LANTIRN pod, they realized that in Afghanistan for example shortly after 9/11 that especially with the GE powered Tomcats, it was a potent long-range strike platform. In October 2002 they launched their fist long range precision strike on terrorist targets deep in AFG, going 1,700nm round trip.
In Iraq in 2003 the deputy commander of the Abe Lincoln Carrier Air Wing (CVW-14) commented that even with the arrival of the F-18E the F-14 still remained "the platform of choice for precision targeting." Later on in the effort, they even based some F-14's ashore to assist SPECOPS forces as they could loiter over target for a long time and drop precision munitions when needed.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 weeks ago) and read 2875 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): That's absolutely right - the cowards in the Hornet mafia who succumbed to the political pressures from Captain Stabbin' Dick Cheney despite what was best for the Navy - keeping the F-14. Between the A-6F and F-14D, U.S. Naval aviation took a big step backwards when they severed their ties with the Grumman Corporation.
How is supporting the aircraft you think best for the Navy succuming to political pressure from the Secretary of Defense who has the same opinion. They're both on the same page. The Navy did not sever ties with Grumman. At the time there were not yet plans to replace the EA-6B with the EA-18G. It looks like the E-2 will be around for a long time to come. My bet when the last Super Hornet is parked in the desert an E-2D will pick up the crew.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): Super-sonic? Big deal, how often are you ever going to find a Super Hornet in reheat whilst laden in strike configuration complete with two to three external fuels tanks because it never possessed the range the A-6 had in the first place?
Stealth? Come on, the Super Hornet is far from a "stealth" aircraft even though it does possess some RCS diminishing attributes.
One could make the same argument regarding an F-14D laden down with LGB, two drop tanks, and air-to-air missiles.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 31): The decision to go with the chimerical A-12 over the A-6F was perhaps the first in a long string of myopic decisions that have directly threatened the value of the Navy's most coveted asset in their nuclear powered aircraft carriers - the ship will only ever be as good as the Air Wing on it's deck.
The A-6F was a low-risk/high-reward prospect readily available for penny's on the dollar as opposed to what the level of risk and associated R&D costs the A-12 came with; the A-6F would have provided the Navy with long-range strike capabilities it still fails to possess even to this day.
IMO a strike version the Tomcat would have been much better than the A-6F. Range, endurance, speed and the capablity to defend itself.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 33): As much as you blame the Hornet Mafia, shouldn't you be more pissed at the ones who screwed the pooch on the A-12? That was when the money was there to deal with a better A-6 replacement, and the USN screwed the pooch by changing the requirements every ten minutes or so.
True, the A-12 program had some serious issues. However if the same rules were applied to the ATF, B-2 and C-17 programs that were applied to the A-12 or P-21 those programs would have been cancelled as well.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 weeks ago) and read 2869 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 34): AESA upgrades are not terribly implausible, the F-15 first flew in 1972 and was designed in the late 1960's yet Boeing still offer new build F-15's with upgraded AESA and avionics. I worked avionics in the Marines and we added all sorts of avionic, flight control, and counter-measure equipment to our CH-46 helicopters that went back to the 1960's. Boeing is offering new-build H-47's with quite advanced avionics and other modern hi-tech gadgets. Israel's IAI has an avionics upgrade program for the Mig-21, a plane that goes back to the 1950's.
Be careful here my friend, upgrades are being offered by Boeing for its product in the CSAR competition, an old obsolete frame as some would say, seems as if you think there is still value to an old design?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35): How is supporting the aircraft you think best for the Navy succuming to political pressure from the Secretary of Defense who has the same opinion. They're both on the same page.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic but the Hornet Mafia was a term loosely used to describe the political lobby by Boeing/MCDD who with the help of Dick Cheney favored Hornets over Tomcats; the Grumman lobby simply got beat despite what many believe was a superior product to the Hornets.
I'm sure the debate will never be settled, but I think it is safe to say that the F-14 was a great plane, perhaps even the greatest plane - that never truly was. By that I mean, it had to endure the first twenty years of its existence with P&W engines that were never designed or intended for it, and the aircraft was just never really able to ever live up to it's intended design. Even when it did start to get the GE engines the plane was always intended to have, the program got canceled; and all of this before the Tomcat crews got wise and started slinging mud and turning the Tomcat into a Bombcat. I look at the F-14 and think, wow - what could have been.
In my opinion the only plane worthy of ever replacing the Tomcat would have been something along the lines of the proposed NATF in a tandem crewed configuration.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35): The Navy did not sever ties with Grumman. At the time there were not yet plans to replace the EA-6B with the EA-18G. It looks like the E-2 will be around for a long time to come. My bet when the last Super Hornet is parked in the desert an E-2D will pick up the crew.
Technically you are correct but I'm just looking at it from the perspective of the meat and potatoes of the Carrier Air Wing, and once the Tomcat and Intruder were gone well, Grumman was and will never be the same.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35): IMO a strike version the Tomcat would have been much better than the A-6F. Range, endurance, speed and the capablity to defend itself.
I simply prefer the CVW's when they had both of them, to hell with the F-18 in any shape or form. A-6E's could carry AIM-9 sidewinders and the proposed A-6F could have carried AMRAAM's, so they wouldn't have exactly been defenseless even though many B/N's frowned on the thought of carrying AAM's.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 36): seems as if you think there is still value to an old design?
I don't think it has any value to the USAF in a CSAR role, no. Too big, too loud, too much aircraft. Of course I fully recognize it's merits to the Army where it has a lot of value but again, that's only because Boeing hadn't done their job and offered the Army the replacement they deserve (it's in the works though.)
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 37): I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic but the Hornet Mafia was a term loosely used to describe the political lobby by Boeing/MCDD who with the help of Dick Cheney favored Hornets over Tomcats; the Grumman lobby simply got beat despite what many believe was a superior product to the Hornets.
I was in the Navy at the time so yes. I'm still not sure how the whole episode makes most Navy officers spineless and toadies.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 37): I simply prefer the CVW's when they had both of them, to hell with the F-18 in any shape or form. A-6E's could carry AIM-9 sidewinders and the proposed A-6F could have carried AMRAAM's, so they wouldn't have exactly been defenseless even though many B/N's frowned on the thought of carrying AAM's.
A strike version of the Tomcat would have been much more survivable than the A-6F. An A-6 with a winder is still an A-6.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 26): If Marine Squadrons are all transferred to the carriers the Marines will eventually loose their air wing, at least the fixed wing component, they will be folded into Navy squadrons and Marine air wings will be composed of helicopters only.
By going after the STOL/VTOL aircraft they are hoping to maintain a fixed wing component as they can be deployed for the various LHD's etc.
So the Marines lose their fixed wing component, whats the big deal? Why should the Marines have their own air force? CAS is not dropping JDAMs at 15,000ft. You can get a B-52 to do that. The CAS support required by the Marines today can be fulfilled by increased numbers of upgraded attack helicopters. Let the Navy and Air Force drop the JDAMs and LGBs and leave the cannon and rocket fire to the helos. Take the money saved to upgrade/increase attack helo strength, add additional airlift, and fill out the Navy air wings with F-18/F-35s. There is no argument to keep fixed wing Marine aviation.
As for F-14 and A-6 upgrades, where would we be today if we did upgrade these airframes? Lets face it the Intruder is a 1950s design and the Tomcat a 1960s design. If we had upgraded them in the early 90s as suggested we would just now be looking at another cycle of upgrades to keep them competitive.
It's true the A-6/F-14 combination has greater range and payload than the SH but I think that is whee the superiority ends. Further those superior attributes can pretty much be negated due to technological advances and the inherent flexibility of the SH.
The A-6 could not self escort. The A-6 was subsonic. No amount of modification could change this. You could have upgraded the engines and avionics back in the 90s and today you would have a plane with aging systems and an old design that would have to be replaced by something.
The F-14 was never allowed to live up to it's potential. On the other hand if the cold war had continued the Super Tomcat 21 would probably be gracing carrier wings now. The fact is times change, technology changes, and needs change. Sure the Tomcat could have been fitted with all the SHs "toys", but the SH is much more reliable, cheaper to operate, more maneuverable, has a much lower RCS, and it has the ability to refuel other aircraft. It can in fact do everything the F-14D could do plus a bit more for much less money.
Super Hornets where not available in numbers right after 9/11 so of course it was the Tomcats who carried the load in Afghanistan for the Navy. The last F-14 left the fleet almost three years ago. The Navy is doing just fine with Super Hornets in Afghanistan.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 37): I'm sure the debate will never be settled, but I think it is safe to say that the F-14 was a great plane, perhaps even the greatest plane - that never truly was.
I agree, but do not sell the SH short. Once you really take a good hard look at it you will realize just how well potent it is.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 39): So the Marines lose their fixed wing component, whats the big deal? Why should the Marines have their own air force? CAS is not dropping JDAMs at 15,000ft.
If I understand the Marine CAS employment, they are mostly doing rockets and dumb bombs.
Which I think is also their reason for wanting their own air component, their stated mission is to support the grunts on the ground, be their arty when theirs is not yet deployed, etc. etc. While the Navy and Air Force does tactical and strategic bombing behind the lines, the Marines provide immediate fire support. This is also in the US Air Force and Navy doctrine, except, they call for eliminating the enemy's air component first - F-22 - then reducing his capacity and ability to support his front line forces, then and only then do they turn to the CAS support the Army needs, the Marines by having their own have been able to side step some of those requirements.
Reality is that the Marines now have their own air component, if the US govt. says they can no longer support this financially, then they will loose it, done deal. However, based on what we are hearing, they have not yet said this so everyone is looking at what is being said, not said, hinted at, etc. etc.etc. it does make for interesting conversation.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2674 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 39): It's true the A-6/F-14 combination has greater range and payload than the SH but I think that is where the superiority ends. Further those superior attributes can pretty much be negated due to technological advances and the inherent flexibility of the SH.
This is the crux of the argument. Thanks for boiling it down. Somehow I don't think everyone on a.net will agree with your opinion, though!
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): I was in the Navy at the time so yes. I'm still not sure how the whole episode makes most Navy officers spineless and toadies.
Again, not "all" Navy officers, just the few Hornet aviators and those that be decision making Admirals that succumbed to the Boeing/McDD lobby. There were plenty of Tomcat supporters however in the end, just not enough. I think the Navy overall lost in that fight, not just Grumman or the F-14 crews.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): A strike version of the Tomcat would have been much more survivable than the A-6F. An A-6 with a winder is still an A-6.
Survivable? If an A-6F could carry the same AAM's as any legacy Hornet can, and if they never engaged one another 1v1, the only differences would be between the range/power of their radars? Survivability is measure in more than roll rate and thrust to weight ratio - a Hornet isn't going to outrun a whole lot of aggressors for too terribly long.
I still think the F/A-18 sold the Navy and Marines a bill of goods that will only help to further reiterate the debate that future platforms should be unmanned - it's a lot easier to accept that argument when you reduce the capability of your current manned platforms.
When talking about the F-18 you have to keep perspective - it was never intended to be anything more than half-assed attempt and solving the problem at the lowest costs available - it's a "jack of all trades, but a master of none." The Tomcat was a better A/A platform and the A-6 was a better A/G platform, but the bean counters successfully lobbied to sacrifice performance and capability for a few bucks.
But I'm just arguing the point from the perspective of hindsight - like a history lesson so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
So don't get me wrong, I like current Block II F/A-18F's and think from this point at least the Marines should buy them to replace their F/A-18D's for their VMFA(AW) squadrons, as well as EA-18G's to replace the EA-6B's. And it's not like the Blue Angels didn't desperately need something a tad more sexy than the A-4's so it's not like it was all for nothing.
Quoting Alien (Reply 39): As for F-14 and A-6 upgrades, where would we be today if we did upgrade these airframes? Lets face it the Intruder is a 1950s design and the Tomcat a 1960s design. If we had upgraded them in the early 90s as suggested we would just now be looking at another cycle of upgrades to keep them competitive.
Yes but the Navy could have saved a lot of coin and skipped the entire Super Hornet generation all together.
Quoting Alien (Reply 39): Once you really take a good hard look at it you will realize just how well potent it is.
But only as potent as it's avionics, electronics, and modern precision munitions allow for it to be. Boeing/McDD may as well have took an F-4 airframe and souped it up with modern engines, avionics and electronics, and slung modern munitions under it's wing - they may have had a better aircraft. But wait - the Super Hornet was just an "upgrade" to the legacy Hornet; oops, my bad.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2658 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 42): The Tomcat was a better A/A platform and the A-6 was a better A/G platform, but the bean counters successfully lobbied to sacrifice performance and capability for a few bucks.
Another salient point. A big point of discussion would be around how much is "a few bucks". Modernize and maintain A6 and F14 out to the same point in time where SH is retired seems to me to be more than a few bucks. In particular, if the mafia is to be believed, F14 needed about twice the maintenance man hours per flight hour as does F18. Add in the two man crews, the aging airframes, and it's a big pile of bucks.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 43): Modernize and maintain A6 and F14 out to the same point in time where SH is retired seems to me to be more than a few bucks.
The A-6F's would have been paid for with just the money subsequently wasted on the A-12 R&D. The F-14D's were fully funded by Congress for 392 airframes and those F-14D's would have taken the Navy well into 2020 before needing to be replaced.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 43): In particular, if the mafia is to be believed, F14 needed about twice the maintenance man hours per flight hour as does F18.
Statistics out of convenience, only after the F-14 production line was closed. Again, we never heard about spares and maintenance issues during the first twenty years of the F-14's life, did we? Why, because it wasn't issue.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 43): Add in the two man crews, the aging airframes, and it's a big pile of bucks.
The Navy still today prefers two-crewed F/A-18F's over the single-seat F/A-18E's, and the airframes would have been brand new and in their prime right now.
Here's an interesting 1985 article debating the merits of the A-6F versus the "A-18(AW)" and while the Admiral ultimately concludes that the strike F-18 offers greater survivability over the A-6F which provides greater range and payload, I'm not sure I concur with his conclusions.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 40): If I understand the Marine CAS employment, they are mostly doing rockets and dumb bombs.
Which I think is also their reason for wanting their own air component, their stated mission is to support the grunts on the ground, be their arty when theirs is not yet deployed, etc. etc. While the Navy and Air Force does tactical and strategic bombing behind the lines, the Marines provide immediate fire support.
So why do you need fixed wing to do this? If the fixed wing boys achieve air superiority there is no need for a fixed wing Marine component. If they don't achieve air superiority and there is a Marine fixed wing component guess what they will be doing. Hint, not CAS. Attack helicopters can just as easily provide direct fire support with hellfires, rockets and cannon and on the rare occasions when you need a 500 pound bomb or two you always can have a B-52 overhead to provide it.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 41): This is the crux of the argument. Thanks for boiling it down. Somehow I don't think everyone on a.net will agree with your opinion, though! Smile
I am still waiting for someone to give one instance where Super Hornets cannot do the same or better job than the F-14/A-6 combo. Think total force. Think flexibility. Think high availability.
The range issue is taken care of due to the fact that you can buddy refuel the Super Hornets so that they have as much range as an F-14 flying escort. That same F-18 doing tanker can also carry A2A missiles as well. The Super Hornets can simultaneously perform A2A and A2G, therefore there is no need for escorts other than for F-18Gs flying SEAD. Any additional range penalty is more than made up with the carriage of standoff weapons like JASSM.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 42): Yes but the Navy could have saved a lot of coin and skipped the entire Super Hornet generation all together.
No they could not have. They would not have been able to fund the upgrades AND procure enough airframes AND afford the bigger maintenance, manning and training footprint.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 42): But only as potent as it's avionics, electronics, and modern precision munitions allow for it to be. Boeing/McDD may as well have took an F-4 airframe and souped it up with modern engines, avionics and electronics, and slung modern munitions under it's wing - they may have had a better aircraft.
Thats just wrong. First both the F-14 and A-6 where complicated (think swing wing and variable inlets for example) airframes that required a lot of maintenance. Second on it's best days neither the F-4, F-14 or A-6 where nearly as maneuverable as a SH. Third, all three airframes had a RCS the size of a barn door, and yes, RCS matters. Fourth all three needed multiple crew members to operate, drank a lot more jet fuel, and took up more space on the flight deck. I know some of this is logistics but remember what wins wars.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 43): Another salient point. A big point of discussion would be around how much is "a few bucks".
Much more than the 50 million or so for a new Super Hornet with all the toys.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 44): Quoting Alien (Reply 39):
Why should the Marines have their own air force?
Because nobody cares about the Marines on the ground more than other Marines.
So use the right tool for the job and that would be lots of attack helicopters backed up witj a properly constituted carrier air wing. The F-35B is overkill for the mission and underkill for everything else.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46): The A-6F's would have been paid for with just the money subsequently wasted on the A-12 R&D. The F-14D's were fully funded by Congress for 392 airframes and those F-14D's would have taken the Navy well into 2020 before needing to be replaced.
Based on recent ops tempo all of those airframes would be getting up there (remember this is naval aviation)in hours now and they would need an upgrade (AESA, helmet mounted sights, towed decoys, etc) to remain competitive. So what would you have the Navy do? Spend more money upgrading old airframes?
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46): Statistics out of convenience, only after the F-14 production line was closed.
No, the study was done in the early 90's. Its the complexity and size of the airframe that was driving maintenance issues. It was made worse after the line closed.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46): The Navy still today prefers two-crewed F/A-18F's over the single-seat F/A-18E's,
Not true, it's about 50/50 with a slight advantage to the F. Even so, it's a single training pipeline and a single logistics chain. Assuming (a huge one) that the Navy would have phased out legacy Hornets, Every tactical aircraft would have had a two man crew and there would have been two (three with legacy Hornets) totally separate logistics chains and training pipelines.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46): Here's an interesting 1985 article debating the merits of the A-6F
They had no idea what the Blk II Super was going to be all about, how the geopolitical situation would change, and what effect the proliferation of smart weapons would have have. Come on a 24 year old report?
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): Any additional range penalty is more than made up with the carriage of standoff weapons like JASSM.
Pardon my ignorance, but don't many missions require visual identification? If JASSM is OK, then why not send lots of surface launched cruise missles?
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): So what would you have the Navy do? Spend more money upgrading old airframes?
That's a key point. Like it or not, IMHO, the Navy has to be more economical. They can't spend as much as USAF does on aviation because they also have to pay for the carriers, support ships, SSN/SSBN, etc. USAF has a large mission too, but it's runways and missle silos don't have to float!
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2435 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 48): Pardon my ignorance, but don't many missions require visual identification? If JASSM is OK, then why not send lots of surface launched cruise missles?
Do you need spotters for air defense assets? Do you need spotters for runways, hangers, and fuel storage tanks? Compared to other cruise missiles, JASSM is more flexible, cheaper and stealthy.
Sure you will always need spotters for CAS. What would be better? Spotting targets from an attack helo that can hover behind cover or using a fast jet?
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 49): Sure you will always need spotters for CAS. What would be better? Spotting targets from an attack helo that can hover behind cover or using a fast jet?
Since the context of the discussion is missions that F18 has difficulty with due to range, how is using an attack helo an option?
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2391 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 50): Since the context of the discussion is missions that F18 has difficulty with due to range, how is using an attack helo an option?
We must be reading different threads. True the main context of this thread is the F/A-18. Others have brought up the issue of Marine aviation as well.
At any rate an F/A-18E has about the same range as an F-35C and an
We are talking about using attack helos for CAS, not, CAP, not interdiction, and not ASuW. You fly the AHs off the LHDs to provide CAS at the beach head. Once inland you establish forward operating bases for the helos some distance behind the front line. Either the AH-1Z or AH-64 have plenty of range for the CAS mission.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2326 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): So why do you need fixed wing to do this? If the fixed wing boys achieve air superiority there is no need for a fixed wing Marine component. If they don't achieve air superiority and there is a Marine fixed wing component guess what they will be doing. Hint, not CAS. Attack helicopters can just as easily provide direct fire support with hellfires, rockets and cannon and on the rare occasions when you need a 500 pound bomb or two you always can have a B-52 overhead to provide it.
Now you see the reason why the Marines want their own fixed wing assets over them, example during the Gulf Wars, the Marines flew CAP missions before the bulk of troops and forces arrived in the region, once that happened, they handed off CAP missions and went all CAS. The US govt. spends many billions of dollars on the US Air Force for specialized a/c to perform CAP and deep strike missions, no one wants the Marines flying interdiction missions, the issue is who wants to fly CAS missions, and the Marines really do.
Calling in a B-52 from 20,000 feet to drop thousand dollar JDAM's or other specialized ordinance when a 500 pound dumb bomb will do the trick is somewhat overkill, besides, compared to the Marines, the Air Force and Navy record for CAS effectiveness is not the same, would be good to hear the opinions of the troops on the ground, Army and Marines.
The VTOL capability of the Marines chosen air asset means that even though their range may be less than the F-18F, they will be based closer to the action, so the difference is negated. Similar to the P3 and the S3 when they were in service on the carrier, quicker to the action, more loiter time as they were closer to base. Still cannot figure out how the Navy though it is better to protect their carriers with helo's and nuke subs only.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 48): That's a key point. Like it or not, IMHO, the Navy has to be more economical. They can't spend as much as USAF does on aviation because they also have to pay for the carriers, support ships, SSN/SSBN, etc. USAF has a large mission too, but it's runways and missle silos don't have to float!
And one of the reasons why this has gotton so much more expensive has to do with the decision years ago to accept the Hornet into service before its major design flaw was addressed, which was its short legs. Blue water operations with the early Hornets placed a strain on air refueling assets, so by default, carriers had to move closer to shore, meaning more anti-air assets, the sophistication and cost of placing the AEGIS system on the smaller Burkes - limited shots - and the early retirement of some TICO's with more shots maybe to pay for the more expensive Burkes? Who does not want to command a billion dollar ship, previously it was the domain of the carriers and the SSBN's, now you can get a Burke.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): First both the F-14 and A-6 where complicated (think swing wing and variable inlets for example) airframes that required a lot of maintenance.
The variable inlets on the F-14 were a preety simple and reliable operation. Three actuators hooked up to the CADC.
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): Second on it's best days neither the F-4, F-14 or A-6 where nearly as maneuverable as a SH. Third, all three airframes had a RCS the size of a barn door, and yes, RCS matters.
Yes those three aircraft had larger RCS compared to more modern aircraft. Some larger than others. Now I know Boeing likes to play up the features on the Super Hornet meant to reduce RCS. Which is all well and good when the aircraft is in a clean configuration. However unless the aircraft is an F-22, B-2 or F-35 no combat aircraft will be going into combat in a clean configuration. It will be ladden down with drop tanks, weapons pylons, along with a host of munitions. All of which are nice reflectors of radar.
Quoting Alien (Reply 47): No, the study was done in the early 90's. Its the complexity and size of the airframe that was driving maintenance issues. It was made worse after the line closed.
Do not forget, by the early 90's some of the older F-14's in the fleet were between ten and fifteen years of age. That's a lot of years of pounding on carrier decks and cat shots.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): Now you see the reason why the Marines want their own fixed wing assets over them, example during the Gulf Wars, the Marines flew CAP missions before the bulk of troops and forces arrived in the region, once that happened, they handed off CAP missions and went all CAS.
The only reason why they did it was because they could do it. If they had not have had the capability to do so you can bet a squadron of F-15s would have been flown in from Europe PDQ. We are talking about 6 AV-8s flying CAP. They would not have lasted long if the Iraqis decided to remove them before the buildup. Honestly, I don't think that strengthens your argument.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): no one wants the Marines flying interdiction missions, the issue is who wants to fly CAS missions, and the Marines really do.
Then why do they need a 75 million dollar F-35B to do it? Seems like massive overkill and a wasteful and vain use of scarce resources. Better spend the money on new LCACs, MV-22s and more attack helicopters for the Marines and a few more SHs or F-35Cs for the Navy.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): Calling in a B-52 from 20,000 feet to drop thousand dollar JDAM's or other specialized ordinance when a 500 pound dumb bomb will do the trick is somewhat overkill,
No it's not when you take into account the cost of the platform that delivers it. Besides how many times do you need a 500lb bomb? Whatever happened to rockets, cannon, and Hellfire missiles? They will do the trick the vast majority of the time.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): The VTOL capability of the Marines chosen air asset means that even though their range may be less than the F-18F, they will be based closer to the action, so the difference is negated.
Helicopters work the same way.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): Still cannot figure out how the Navy though it is better to protect their carriers with helo's and nuke subs only.
They didn't. They ran out of money buying gold plated things like F-35Bs and DDG-1000s for the Marines. Maybe they could get a real fixed wing ASW asset on board with some of the money saved by ditching the F-35B.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 52): And one of the reasons why this has gotton so much more expensive has to do with the decision years ago to accept the Hornet into service before its major design flaw was addressed, which was its short legs.
What ever are you talking about. The Navy always said they would like the Hornets to have a bit more range but I challenge you to rationalize why the Hornet's short legs are a fiscal drain on the Navy. In fact it's just the opposite but you go right ahead and explain why I'm wrong. Your logic and timing is faulty. The Burkes where designed from the start to have AEGIS. The carriers have regularly used SHs to project airpower over Afghanistan which is over 1000 mile mission round trip. The early Ticos (whatever it has to do with this I don;t know) where retired because they used the old MK 41 launcher rather than VLS. Last, now follow this closely. A-6s could not self escort, they needed Tomcats or (perish the thought) legacy Hornets to escort them if they where going anywhere there was a risk of enemy aircraft, so in many cases the Intruders superior range was negated by the requirement for an escort. The F-14 and SH have comparable combat radius.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 53): The variable inlets on the F-14 were a preety simple and reliable operation. Three actuators hooked up to the CADC.
Perhaps but it is just an example of more complexity and another thing needing maintenance.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 53): Now I know Boeing likes to play up the features on the Super Hornet meant to reduce RCS. Which is all well and good when the aircraft is in a clean configuration. However unless the aircraft is an F-22, B-2 or F-35 no combat aircraft will be going into combat in a clean configuration. It will be ladden down with drop tanks, weapons pylons, along with a host of munitions. All of which are nice reflectors of radar.
Obviously a clean aircraft will have a lower RCS than the same one burdened with fuel and ordinance but RCS is not absolute. Every dB less means that an aircraft is just that much harder to detect and track. Even with stores the RCS is still extremely small. It makes a huge difference. The Navy paid a lot to have the SH front end redesigned and the air intakes worked on to reduce RCS. Last, fuel tanks and stores get jettisoned. Data links can be used to have clean aircraft guide missiles from other aircraft to their targets. Anything that make a plane harder to detect is good.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2019 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 51): At any rate an F/A-18E has about the same range as an F-35C and an
Boeing would only love one to believe such is the case, however that's just not true. The F-35C has the larger wing and carries the most gas in the F-35 family and with it's single engine, will beat the F/A-18E in every endurance contest, with/without externals.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): A-6s could not self escort, they needed Tomcats or (perish the thought) legacy Hornets to escort them if they where going anywhere there was a risk of enemy aircraft, so in many cases the Intruders superior range was negated by the requirement for an escort.
A) Intruders weren't exactly shaking in their pants even in Vietnam who was the last time the US really engaged aerial combat with a credible threat of opposing aerial forces, and B) the A-6E could sling AIM-9 and had they went forward with A-6F, AMRAAM, too.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): The F-14 and SH have comparable combat radius.
Even the Pratt & Splatt Toms had superior range to the SH's, but the GE Toms simply dominated the SH in range, even with all five of the Super Bugs externals (in induced drag) and homosexual buddy tankers. (What self-respecting fighter pilot is going to fly buddy tanker, anyways?!)
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2008 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): The only reason why they did it was because they could do it. If they had not have had the capability to do so you can bet a squadron of F-15s would have been flown in from Europe PDQ
Is that not one of the reasons why the US Navy has carriers, they can get to places without the political need for land bases, that why the Marines and Navy could do so while they wait for the Air Froce and the politicians.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): Then why do they need a 75 million dollar F-35B to do it? Seems like massive overkill and a wasteful and vain use of scarce resources
Same reason why every defense program cost too much money and is overkill, you think the F-22 is affordable, faulty logic there, I guess you will list for the me other bidders who offered a VTOL a/c for less money.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): The early Ticos (whatever it has to do with this I don;t know) where retired because they used the old MK 41 launcher rather than VLS
Lets hope the VLS system is the end all to missile launchers, wold hate to think that all ships currently using them will have to be decommissioned when something new comes along.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): They didn't. They ran out of money buying gold plated things like F-35Bs and DDG-1000s for the Marines. Maybe they could get a real fixed wing ASW asset on board with some of the money saved by ditching the F-35B.
I'll take this one in the tone it was offered
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): What ever are you talking about. The Navy always said they would like the Hornets to have a bit more range
We agree on something. I guess we would need a whole other thread to discuss how the short legs of the Hornet affects and drives carrier operations in terms of fuel support, mission training etc. etc. etc., so I'll let this one go.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): A-6s could not self escort, they needed Tomcats or (perish the thought) legacy Hornets to escort them if they where going anywhere there was a risk of enemy aircraft, so in many cases the Intruders superior range was negated by the requirement for an escort. The F-14 and SH have comparable combat radius.
An a/c range is negated because it needs an escort???, I never looked at it like that before, now I have to re-think a lot of stuff. Why support the F-22 when a F-15E mud hen could do the job, now I know why the A-10 is going, the F-16, just cannot figure out how the B-52 or B1 will self protect itself, but I am willing to learn, never claimed to know everything.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 55): Boeing would only love one to believe such is the case, however that's just not true. The F-35C has the larger wing and carries the most gas in the F-35 family and with it's single engine, will beat the F/A-18E in every endurance contest, with/without externals.
Actually I was using the Navy number for the SH and the manufacturer number for the F-35C. Their A2A combat radius is virtually identical.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 55): A) Intruders weren't exactly shaking in their pants even in Vietnam who was the last time the US really engaged aerial combat with a credible threat of opposing aerial forces, and B) the A-6E could sling AIM-9 and had they went forward with A-6F, AMRAAM, too.
Vietnam in 1972 is not Tehran or Macau in 2015. The Intruder was state of the art and they still lost over 80 of them. Never forget that they where escorted by F-4s on most missions. If you think that hanging heaters or slammers on an A-6 makes it self escorting, well what can I say other than that's not realistic.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 55): Even the Pratt & Splatt Toms had superior range to the SH's, but the GE Toms simply dominated the SH in range, even with all five of the Super Bugs externals (in induced drag) and homosexual buddy tankers. (What self-respecting fighter pilot is going to fly buddy tanker, anyways?!)
Quoting Par13del (Reply 56): Is that not one of the reasons why the US Navy has carriers, they can get to places without the political need for land bases, that why the Marines and Navy could do so while they wait for the Air Froce and the politicians.
So what's your point? They don;t have to say "Marines" on the side of the plane when they launch it from a carrier.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 56): Same reason why every defense program cost too much money and is overkill, you think the F-22 is affordable, faulty logic there, I guess you will list for the me other bidders who offered a VTOL a/c for less money.
Yeah, just about anyone who makes a decent AH. You are getting confused. Why is a high performance VTOL jet a necessity? That's the real question and I think they are not.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 56): Lets hope the VLS system is the end all to missile launchers, wold hate to think that all ships currently using them will have to be decommissioned when something new comes along.
Why don'y you do a bit of research before you go and make such an ignorant remark. Have you ever seen either launcher in action? Do you know why they got rid of the Mk 41 just about overnight? Do a bit of research.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 56): An a/c range is negated because it needs an escort???,
It certainly does reduce the mission package's effective range. Go and ponder it.
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 55): Even the Pratt & Splatt Toms had superior range to the SH's, but the GE Toms simply dominated the SH in range, even with all five of the Super Bugs externals (in induced drag) and homosexual buddy tankers. (What self-respecting fighter pilot is going to fly buddy tanker, anyways?!)
One that doesn't want to swim?
Don't ask, don't tell, baby!
Quoting Par13del (Reply 56): Is that not one of the reasons why the US Navy has carriers, they can get to places without the political need for land bases, that why the Marines and Navy could do so while they wait for the Air Froce and the politicians.
Last time I looked, Afghanistan was land-locked and right next to Iran which limits your carrier ops somewhat, doesn't it?
Revelation From United States of America, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 4457 posts, RR: 4 Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 57): Actually I was using the Navy number for the SH and the manufacturer number for the F-35C. Their A2A combat radius is virtually identical.
Sorry, wrong again. The F-14D needs two tanks to attain a combat radius that is only about 25nmi greater than the SH.
Well you go ahead and believe whatever you want.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 59): Someone in NavAir must agree with you: the official name of the buddy tanker pod is the ARS (aerial refueling system)!
I can see it now: "Maverick! You're taking up the ARSe today!" to which he replied "Oh man, not again - I always get the shaft! When are you going to let me fly the strike package again?!"
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1863 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58): Last time I looked, Afghanistan was land-locked and right next to Iran which limits your carrier ops somewhat, doesn't it?
That will teach the US govt. to get involved in an area where their carriers are of little use.
Either that or they could save some money and eliminate a few of the current 11.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58): Last time I looked, Afghanistan was land-locked and right next to Iran which limits your carrier ops somewhat, doesn't it?
Not true, Supers, and F-14s all launched from carriers and operated in Afghanistan on a regular basis.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60): Well you go ahead and believe whatever you want.
It's got nothing to do with what I want to believe and everything to do with using multiple, reliable sources such as the user and the manufacturer. If you cannot believe them then you cannot believe anything anyone says unless it adheres to your opinion. I will stick with the facts thank you.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1759 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): Perhaps but it is just an example of more complexity and another thing needing maintenance.
The AICS system on the F-14 is still not the best example of the F-14's complexity. It's kind of like using the F-18's wing fold mechanism as an example as an example of that aircrafts complexity.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): Last, fuel tanks and stores get jettisoned.
Yes stroes and drop tanks to get jettisoned, but not before attacking the target. While the stores and drop tanks might go the pylons that carry them do not.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): Data links can be used to have clean aircraft guide missiles from other aircraft to their targets.
I'm not sure what advantage that would give. One also has to think what fighter pilot would want to go into a combat zone with nothing but a load of 20mm?
JDAMS guide themselves so you don need such an arrangement. I guess a clean aircraft could buddy laze. However that aircraft would have to carry a targeting pod so it would no longer be clean. Then of course in order to attack a target both aircraft would have to be relatively close to it. Which means being in range of any modern air defense. In the case of the AGM-65 with a range of around fifteen miles the launch aircraft would be in range of most Russian built SAM's. There are weapons like JSOW and SLAM-ER that have a range of around 70 miles and 150 miles respectively. Since this is out of range of most air defenses there would be no advantage of a clean aircraft guiding munitions for another aircraft.
So the situation is the aircraft launching the munitions is either in range of air defenses or out of range which means little need for remote guidance. If they are in range remote guidance is little comfort for the crew flying the aircraft loaded down with drop tanks and weapons.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 days ago) and read 1745 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 62): It's got nothing to do with what I want to believe and everything to do with using multiple, reliable sources such as the user and the manufacturer. If you cannot believe them then you cannot believe anything anyone says unless it adheres to your opinion. I will stick with the facts thank you.
But we've had this debate going back to the turn of the millennium - it was common knowledge that the Super Hornets couldn't keep up with the Tomcats in raids over AFG; not only were the Toms and in particular the GE Toms with their swing wings very fuel efficient they could sling their ordinance between their big engine nacelles and suffer virtually no induced drag penalty - that's what kills the Super Bug: induced drag on top of weight every time you add another munition.
Quoting Alien (Reply 54): The F-14 and SH have comparable combat radius.
That is just factually incorrect, the Tomcats could run circles around the Super Hornet, and all the more so with the more ordinance they hung underneath the Super Hornet - it's called Super Draggy.
The Tomcat was harder to fly and maintain, but for those who knew how to use it, it's fundamental engineering (and this from a time when it went from the drafting table (no CAD in 1968/9) to it's first flight in December in 1970 in less than two years) was superior in every way to the utterly uninspiring engineering of the Super Hornet and if it were not for the modern advancements in electronics and avionics, it's would be a Super Failure rather than the Super Disappointment it is.
Still, I think the Marines should buy some though, funny how that works?! Well, the F/A-18F is better than an F/A-18D, or an F-35B in FAC(A), and the EA-18G is hands down ahead of the EA-6B. At least the F/A-18F retains that classic tandem seat fighter jet profile from the Tomcat going back to the F-4.
Quote: F-14 Tomcats took part in the war as part of several Carrier Air Wings. The deputy commander of CVW-41 (USS Abraham Lincoln) stated, that even with the arrival of the F/A-18E, the F-14 remains "the platform of choice for precision targeting."
Even the USN would tell you that the Super Hornets never had the range of either their Grumman predecessors. You can claim the Super Hornet is new, has a slew of modern technological gadgets in & on it, and you can even argue that it was a tad easier and less expensive to maintain, but you can never say that the Super Hornet was ever able to carry as much ordinance over as many miles as the Tomcat.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 days ago) and read 1726 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 64): and in particular the GE Toms with their swing wings
Seems like ya mis-punctuated that. Swing wings were not particular to the GE Tomcats. I know you knew what you meant, and I knew what you meant, but it doesn't read like you meant. To me at least.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 65): Seems like ya mis-punctuated that. Swing wings were not particular to the GE Tomcats. I know you knew what you meant, and I knew what you meant, but it doesn't read like you meant. To me at least.
You got me; I should have worded that better, my bad.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 66): You got me; I should have worded that better, my bad.
No worries. If english teachers read most of my writing the would have a heart attack!! For some reason that just stuck out at me.
I will not get deep into a discussion about whether the Super Hornet should have replaced the Tomcat. My opinion is that you should not put all your eggs in one basket, that basket being a Carrier Air Wing that in a few years will consist of F/A-18C's, F/A-18E/F's, and EF-18G's. Eventually those early model Hornets will be replaced by the JSF, but I am not sure how much faith I have in that being a successful carrier aircraft. I believe there are true air superiority and deep strike roles that need to be filled.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, 
From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4623 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2655 posts, 
, 4457 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
