Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SteelChair wrote:It has been about 15 years, perhaps a little longer, since Mr. Cheney killed the Tomcat. I'm wondering how it has worked out, especially since so many people were so aggrieved by the decision.
Safety: One would anticipate that there have been far fewer SH lost than F14s over a similar 15 year period. How many Naval Aviators are alive today simply because of the change to the SH, perhaps 50?
Reliability: Mission capable rates were always a problem with the F14. One would tend to think that many more missions have been flown with better predictability due to the more reliable SH.
Fuel: The Hornet is smaller, has a smaller fuel capacity, and likely burns less fuel than the much larger and older Tomcat. Reliance upon AEGIS cruisers and destroyers for more of the fleet defense role has probably decreased the amount of time for SH on CAP, but then again the decision to retire other aircraft that had tanking capability has caused premature wear and tear on SH due to them performing as a tanker in the buddy tanker role.
Does anyone know how well the Naval Aviation Maintenance Center for Excellence (NAMCE) at Lemoore is performing? A year or so ago there was a flurry of articles about how many long term "down" aircraft they were returning to fleet service. I wonder how many airplanes they have put back into service in the intervening time?
Does anyone have any data regarding these topics?
bikerthai wrote:Just like the F-111, you are carrying extra weight of the swing wing mechanism just to attain the supersonic efficiency that you rarely need. All the extra weight would better go into more fuel and payload.
bt
744SPX wrote:bikerthai wrote:Just like the F-111, you are carrying extra weight of the swing wing mechanism just to attain the supersonic efficiency that you rarely need. All the extra weight would better go into more fuel and payload.
bt
To be fair though, the F-111 benefitted tremendously from the swing wing at low altitude high speed flight, where it spent most of its time.
744SPX wrote:bikerthai wrote:Just like the F-111, you are carrying extra weight of the swing wing mechanism just to attain the supersonic efficiency that you rarely need. All the extra weight would better go into more fuel and payload.
bt
Which is why a swing wing makes more sense for an aircraft that will be spending a larger percentage of time at supersonic speeds, such as NGAD or a supersonic transport.
To be fair though, the F-111 benefitted tremendously from the swing wing at low altitude high speed flight, where it spent most of its time.
744SPX wrote:bikerthai wrote:Just like the F-111, you are carrying extra weight of the swing wing mechanism just to attain the supersonic efficiency that you rarely need. All the extra weight would better go into more fuel and payload.
bt
Which is why a swing wing makes more sense for an aircraft that will be spending a larger percentage of time at supersonic speeds, such as NGAD or a supersonic transport.
To be fair though, the F-111 benefitted tremendously from the swing wing at low altitude high speed flight, where it spent most of its time.
There's some confusion about the various proposed advanced versions of the Tomcat.
F-14 Quickstrike (also called the "Block IV upgrade") was basically an F-14D with greater strike capability. Since the Tomcat-Ds APG-71 incorporated a number of common features with the F-15Es APG-70, the plan was to port over a good portion of the Strike Eagle's a/g software. The APG-71 had a bigger antenna and a more powerful transmitter than the APG-70 so it would have had greater range and resolution than the F-15Es. It would have Synthetic Aperture Radar like the F-15E, and Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, which the Strike Eagle lacked. Sea surface search would be developed as would terrain avoidance modes. Off the shelf nav/attack and laser rangefinder/designator pods would be added. There would also be some cockpit changes. Weapons testing and clearance trials would be undertaken for different types of a/g ordnance.
This would produce an aircraft superior to the Super Hornet in both fighter and strike roles, but would cost 1/22 as much to develop, since these would be enhancements to an existing aircraft, whereas the F/A-18E/F is essentially a new program. At equal production rates, a Quickstrike would cost about $2 millino more than a Hornet E/F.
Super Tomcat 21 was an outgrowth of earlier Tomcat 21 studies for a more affordable alternative to the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter with greater strike capability. It would use the higher thrust GE F110-429 engines. It would also modify the wings to incorporate Fowler flaps and an increased chord leading edge slat to bring back the approach margin that had been used up by weight growth in the Tomcat over the years. The 9,000 lb. bringback capability of the -14D would be increased to 16,000 lbs (17,000 if you count the gun). Although the APG-71 would be retained, it would be enhanced and the radar output would be doubled from 10 Kw to 20. This, combined with the enormous antenna (36 in, possibly increasing to 40), would allow very long range and/or high resolution beyond other aircraft. The FLIR and sensor pods would be permanently mounted. All analog systems would be digitized and fly by wire would be an option, although not in the base design. The cockpits would be completely redesigned and there would be a one piece windscreen. It would also be capable of carrying larger conformal external fuel tanks
There would be structural enhancements for the ST-21's increased agility. The glove vanes, removed after the F-14A would still be gone, but the glove itself would be modified so that its shape would be that of the old glove withe the vanes extended. This is where the 2,000 lbs of fuel would go, along with a relocated IFF. ST-21 would have all-weather strike capability, even better than Quickstrike's and be an enormous advance in air-to-air.
Attack Super Tomcat 21 is essentially ST-21 with the priorities reversed. The IFF goes back to the nose, which allows 300 lbs. more fuel to be carried.. The TCS and IRST would be made removable and a Forward Air Controller beacon mode would be added to the radar. The pylons under the nacelles would be modified so that they could carry weapons as well as fuel. Although the APG-71 is retained, the option would be there to put in A-12 avionics, if the Navy was willing to fund it.
Both Super Tomcat 21 and its attack sibling would cost less to develop than the Super Hornet, although their production cost would be more. Also, existing Tomcats with sufficient airframe life could be rebuilt into ST or AST-21s, alongside new production.
ASF-14 would be a Tomcat derivative in ATF class with new avionics, some borrowed from A-12 and ATF, some carried forward, and some custom developed. Because the design of this aircraft would "lock" a few years after the F-22's in some ways its (along with ST and AST-21's) avionics would be more advanced. It would have provision for a conformal radar in the leading edge of the wing, resulting in a different outer wing panel. It would use engines from the ATF and would also incorporate 3D thrust vectoring (F-22 is 2D, only 3D in service is on SU-30MKI). Although you could not rebuild earlier F-14s into ASF-14, is development cost would still be less than that of Super Hornet. However, it would cost substantially more.
That would be the problem with ASF-14. It would cost twice what ST-21 would cost but would not offer twice the warfighting capability. It would be stealthier, but also heavier and draggier, which would eat up the extra thrust. So, even Grumman wasn't too enthusiastic about ASF-14.
CRJockey wrote:I would guess that it worked out tremendously well, especially with hindsight. The role of the Tomcat seems awfully one-dimensional from a todays' point of view, basically being limited to carrying AIM54 in reach of soviet bombers. And that role all but disappeared. The SH is a by far more versatile aircraft and if any airfield in the world needs versatility, it would be a carrier deck and the hangar space below.
Maybe I am wrong, but if weren't for the Top Gun movie, public opinion wouldn't give a damn about the Tomcat.
SteelChair wrote:Safety: One would anticipate that there have been far fewer SH lost than F14s over a similar 15 year period. How many Naval Aviators are alive today simply because of the change to the SH, perhaps 50?
Fuel: The Hornet is smaller, has a smaller fuel capacity, and likely burns less fuel than the much larger and older Tomcat. Reliance upon AEGIS cruisers and destroyers for more of the fleet defense role has probably decreased the amount of time for SH on CAP, but then again the decision to retire other aircraft that had tanking capability has caused premature wear and tear on SH due to them performing as a tanker in the buddy tanker role.
SteelChair wrote:
Has there been a single time in the last 20 years that the high speed of the F14 was needed? In other words, a time when the F18 SH wasn't able to do its job because it was too slow?
744SPX wrote:The SH is the first front line Navy fighter to be incapable of exceeding the sound barrier at sea level since before the introduction of the F4; and that is without the heinously draggy outward canted inboard pylons.
I'd take the regular Hornet any day over the SH. The modest power increase over the C is more than eaten up by the airframes excessive drag and 9000 pound weight gain over the C.
SteelChair wrote:Has there been a single time in the last 20 years that the high speed of the F14 was needed? In other words, a time when the F18 SH wasn't able to do its job because it was too slow?
744SPX wrote:The SH is the first front line Navy fighter to be incapable of exceeding the sound barrier at sea level since before the introduction of the F4; and that is without the heinously draggy outward canted inboard pylons.
tomcat wrote:744SPX wrote:The SH is the first front line Navy fighter to be incapable of exceeding the sound barrier at sea level since before the introduction of the F4; and that is without the heinously draggy outward canted inboard pylons.
I have never found precise figures about the effect on drag of these canted pylons. Are they really much worse than non-canted pylons would be?
If the canted pylons are really detrimental in terms of drag, I'm wondering if a trade-off has ever been made between retaining only 2 underwing pylons and more spread apart vs the 3 current pylons and this in case this configuration with 2 underwing pylons would have avoided the need of the outward canting. Two underwing pylons instead of three would have obviously limited the bomb load but if it would have allowed a significant drag reduction, it might have been a wise choice.
tomcat wrote:SteelChair wrote:Has there been a single time in the last 20 years that the high speed of the F14 was needed? In other words, a time when the F18 SH wasn't able to do its job because it was too slow?
I don't think high performances are required to bomb a pick-up truck in the middle of the desert. A good old A-4 would be sufficient for that kind of job so even the SH could be considered too much of an aircraft for most of the flying it has accomplished so far.
What needs to be looked at to justify the choice or the design of an aircraft is the whole scope of missions it would be intended to cover combined with the threats it would need to face. High performances are only required to perform a limited set of missions.
Also, when talking about speed, not just the top speed must be looked at. What's important is also the ability to drop bombs and launch missiles at a relatively high speed to maximize their range. In this arena, the Tomcat was obviously outperforming the SH by a significant margin.
SteelChair wrote:tomcat wrote:SteelChair wrote:Has there been a single time in the last 20 years that the high speed of the F14 was needed? In other words, a time when the F18 SH wasn't able to do its job because it was too slow?
I don't think high performances are required to bomb a pick-up truck in the middle of the desert. A good old A-4 would be sufficient for that kind of job so even the SH could be considered too much of an aircraft for most of the flying it has accomplished so far.
What needs to be looked at to justify the choice or the design of an aircraft is the whole scope of missions it would be intended to cover combined with the threats it would need to face. High performances are only required to perform a limited set of missions.
Also, when talking about speed, not just the top speed must be looked at. What's important is also the ability to drop bombs and launch missiles at a relatively high speed to maximize their range. In this arena, the Tomcat was obviously outperforming the SH by a significant margin.
It sounds as if your primary objection is against the multirole concept. It appears that you think a carrier complement should involve specialized aircraft per the 1970s and 80s doctrine: fighter/interceptor, ground attack, ASW, EW, COD, with tanking attached to one of those.
ThePointblank wrote:tomcat wrote:744SPX wrote:The SH is the first front line Navy fighter to be incapable of exceeding the sound barrier at sea level since before the introduction of the F4; and that is without the heinously draggy outward canted inboard pylons.
I have never found precise figures about the effect on drag of these canted pylons. Are they really much worse than non-canted pylons would be?
If the canted pylons are really detrimental in terms of drag, I'm wondering if a trade-off has ever been made between retaining only 2 underwing pylons and more spread apart vs the 3 current pylons and this in case this configuration with 2 underwing pylons would have avoided the need of the outward canting. Two underwing pylons instead of three would have obviously limited the bomb load but if it would have allowed a significant drag reduction, it might have been a wise choice.
You'll have to ask the USN and Boeing for the exact details, but the reason why the pylons were canted in the first place was due to a stores separation issue that was discovered late during testing.
The issue they found was that ordinance or external fuel tanks when dropped from the pylons would not separate from the aircraft in a manner that was safe for the aircraft; from what I remember hearing, dropped ordinance and fuel tanks would not fall immediately away from the aircraft, and would instead either collide with the aircraft or with other ordinance hanging off the aircraft.
By the time the USN and Boeing discovered the issue, it was extremely late in the testing program; there was no way to modify the aircraft in production in a cost effective manner. Modifying the placement of the pylons would have entailed a complete redesign of the wing, which would have been extremely costly so late in testing.
LightningZ71 wrote:Considering that, typically, we see at least two of the pylons filled with drop tanks, the proposed addition of CFTs could have been coupled with the disuse of two of the pylons to allow for improved airflow. I wonder if, when paired with the centerline fuel tank /IRST module, it could have made for a notably improved platform?
ThePointblank wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:Considering that, typically, we see at least two of the pylons filled with drop tanks, the proposed addition of CFTs could have been coupled with the disuse of two of the pylons to allow for improved airflow. I wonder if, when paired with the centerline fuel tank /IRST module, it could have made for a notably improved platform?
Boeing discovered they had structural issues related to the proposal to install CFT's on the Super Hornets and that idea was dropped from development due to costs and technical challenges.