Hellcat V, naming scheme question.

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto

The only real reason that the F/A-18's in major service at all is of course budget concerns, and the fact that the N-ATF failed to materialise so the newer airframes were simply picked to fill more roles than intended.(The E/F versions of the Hornet were never really meant for full service but more as a stop gap till the N-ATF's and AX projects came to fruitation.)
Me thinks you are somewhat mistaken here.

The F/A-18 is in major service because it's a multi-role aircraft (as the designation suggests). In fact, the Hornet is replacing the F-14 in some of the Navy fighter squadrons -- many carirers now deploy with only 1 Tomcat squadron but as many as 4 Hornet squadrons aboard. The Hornet will be, and has always been planned to be, in service long past the Tomcat.

The Hornet is also one of the more modern aircraft in the USNavy arsenal. While it's true that the E/F variants were initially intended as a stop-gap, they were designed in such a way that they could effectively serve for years to come, with or without the introductionof the NATF.

It is most certainly NOT a mistake or concession, as your comments seem to imply.
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix

Me thinks you are somewhat mistaken here.

The F/A-18 is in major service because it's a multi-role aircraft (as the designation suggests). In fact, the Hornet is replacing the F-14 in some of the Navy fighter squadrons -- many carirers now deploy with only 1 Tomcat squadron but as many as 4 Hornet squadrons aboard. The Hornet will be, and has always been planned to be, in service long past the Tomcat.

The Hornet is also one of the more modern aircraft in the USNavy arsenal. While it's true that the E/F variants were initially intended as a stop-gap, they were designed in such a way that they could effectively serve for years to come, with or without the introductionof the NATF.

It is most certainly NOT a mistake or concession, as your comments seem to imply.

One of the more "modern" aircraft that'll be phased out a mere 4 years after the F-14D Tomcat. Wow, what an impressive airframe.

But seriously.

The only reason the original VFAX project was issued was due to the "excessive" cost of the F-14 Tomcat in it's development phase.(Originally the Navy wanted to have F-14B's as the mainstay interceptor, an F-14C for strike, and the A-12 or A-6F for the main attack fighter.)

This came mostly from the inability for the F-14 to quickly fill the role of supplanting the F-4 due to budget overruns, and the need to quickly replace the A-7 Corsair II in a strike role.

While the F-18(F/A is actually an unofficial designator) is a good middle of the envelope all aspect dog-fighter(As an AIM-9L platform, it's almost unmatched.) which supplants the F-14 very well as a carrier based fighter, however as a dual-role craft even the new F-18E/F varients aren't nearly as capable of dedicated strike role aircraft(They carry roughly half the ordinance of an A-6 Intruder of years past) And in addition the C/D varients price at roughly 2/3rds that of the F-14D, making it an attractive supplanting fighter in the air superiority role.

The fact that the Navy is rather quick to replace the E/F varients with the new F-24 JSF is a clear sign of both lack of capability, and the stop-gap measures of the E/F designs.(They're also self defeating. The E/F's cost nearly $60million/unit which is double that of the original Hornet, and roughly 25% more than the F-14D even accounting for inflation)

It's interesting to see though, that the F-18 is indeed supplanting all the A-6 based airframes in addition to a potential EA-6 Prowler replacement with an EW Hornet.(Though a modified F-14 frame may also be used in this role as an expanded TARPS)

Not that I agree with the Navy's "must do everything with aircraft" approach.

The main use of a CVW should be as a method of achieving air superiority with SEED strikes capable from air platforms(the LANTIRN equipped F-14D is capable of this as well) while leaving heavy ground attack and strikes to the carrier group's escorts, which would ideally be equipped with heavy GUN based weapons rather than missiles.(This method of composing an Air Wing and carrier group is also supported by a number of retired USN personnel,it's unfortunate that the time to actually implement this was wasted after the cancellation of the AX project.)
 
Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
One of the more "modern" aircraft that'll be phased out a mere 4 years after the F-14D Tomcat. Wow, what an impressive airframe.
I'm not sure from whence you git this info. As I mentioned, the Hornet has already replaced a number of Tomcat squadrons, and is expected to be opertational well into the 20-teens.

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
The only reason the original VFAX project was issued was due to the "excessive" cost of the F-14 Tomcat in it's development phase.(Originally the Navy wanted to have F-14B's as the mainstay interceptor, an F-14C for strike, and the A-12 or A-6F for the main attack fighter.)
Again, I'm curious as to your history. The F-14 was not initially envisioned as a strike platform, but as a pure fleet interceptor. Strike capabilities were not even considered until the plane was over 15 years old.

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
This came mostly from the inability for the F-14 to quickly fill the role of supplanting the F-4 due to budget overruns, and the need to quickly replace the A-7 Corsair II in a strike role.

While the F-18(F/A is actually an unofficial designator)
What? Now I KNOW you're getting inaccurate information. The Hornet was developed from the outset as a multi-role fighter, and has ALWAYS carried the F/A designation.


Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
is a good middle of the envelope all aspect dog-fighter(As an AIM-9L platform, it's almost unmatched.) which supplants the F-14 very well as a carrier based fighter, however as a dual-role craft even the new F-18E/F varients aren't nearly as capable of dedicated strike role aircraft(They carry roughly half the ordinance of an A-6 Intruder of years past) And in addition the C/D varients price at roughly 2/3rds that of the F-14D, making it an attractive supplanting fighter in the air superiority role.
Finally we agree on something. :) The F/A-18 has neither the payload of the A-6, the accuracy in payload delivery of the A-7, nor the long-range air-to-air capabilities of the Tomcat -- AIM-54 Phoenix missile, anyone? As with most multi-role craft, it is a jack of all trades, master of none (though in the Hornet's case, it is better than most).

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
The fact that the Navy is rather quick to replace the E/F varients with the new F-24 JSF is a clear sign of both lack of capability, and the stop-gap measures of the E/F designs.(They're also self defeating. The E/F's cost nearly $60million/unit which is double that of the original Hornet, and roughly 25% more than the F-14D even accounting for inflation)
You keep mentioning this "quick replacement", yet fail to point out that the Navy has no clear date for replacing the Hornet (since the production schedule of the JSF is currently not set).

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto
It's interesting to see though, that the F-18 is indeed supplanting all the A-6 based airframes in addition to a potential EA-6 Prowler replacement with an EW Hornet.(Though a modified F-14 frame may also be used in this role as an expanded TARPS)
The TARPS Tomcat has been in service for 10 years now. The A-6 bomber variant has been gone for several years now (shortly after the Gulf War, replaced by Hornets), only the EA-6B remains. And as I mentioned, the Hornet is also replacing many Tomcats.

Oh, and FWIW, the A-6F that you mentioned earlier in the thread was really nothing more than upgrading existing A-6E craft with new wings and updated avionics. It was NOT going to be a new build, per se.
 
Re: F-19

Originally posted by dacis2
F-19 later reclassified X-214
Tactical Air to air guided nuclear missile
experimental
project scrapped due to budget cuts
compromise: Genie unguided nuclear tipped air to air rocket
Genie Nuclear tipped Air to Air rocket
discontinued

Problem with that is that the Genie predates any fighter from the newer (post Phantom II) 'F' series fighters.
So that can't be used as an explanation for the lack of an F-19.
IIRC, the Genie dates back to between Korea and Vietnam, and was used with the early F-100 type fighters (F-102? Can't recall.)
 
Originally posted by Nob Akimoto

One of the more "modern" aircraft that'll be phased out a mere 4 years after the F-14D Tomcat. Wow, what an impressive airframe.

The fact that the Navy is rather quick to replace the E/F varients with the new F-24 JSF is a clear sign of both lack of capability, and the stop-gap measures of the E/F designs.(They're also self defeating. The E/F's cost nearly $60million/unit which is double that of the original Hornet, and roughly 25% more than the F-14D even accounting for inflation)
I not an expert but I doubt that the F/A-18E/F is just a stop-gap measure. If it were, from your stats, its an expensive one. It would be better to just wait for the JSF, and soldier on with the F-14B/Ds and F/A-18C/Ds - a combination that has worked well in the past. This is also more viable since the USN does not face a significant aerial threat, so there's no overwhelming need for a better aircraft right this minute.
Also I know that the F-14 isn't scheduled to finally leave service until 2010. And the new JSFs will probably complement the F/A-18E/Fs rather than replace them outright, since its simply not cost-effective to replace new airframes that are only a few years old.

Originally posted by Nob Akimoto

The main use of a CVW should be as a method of achieving air superiority with SEED strikes capable from air platforms(the LANTIRN equipped F-14D is capable of this as well) while leaving heavy ground attack and strikes to the carrier group's escorts, which would ideally be equipped with heavy GUN based weapons rather than missiles.
This illustrates what a crappy position the Navy is in. Guns lack the range of missiles. Missiles are costly and stockpiles are easily exhausted. And the USN hasn't got a heavy strike aircraft like the A-6 or A-12.
 
The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's equivelent of the F-15C, only with strike capability. It even looks a lot like it.
 
Originally posted by Hoops
The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's equivelent of the F-15C, only with strike capability. It even looks a lot like it.
Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that the F/A-18 is the USNavy equivalent of the Air Force's F-15E -- both have significant air-to-air AND air-to-ground capabilities.

The Hornet is also somewhat smaller than the Eagle, has shorter range, and is not capable of carrying the same total weight of weaponry.
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix

I'm not sure from whence you git this info. As I mentioned, the Hornet has already replaced a number of Tomcat squadrons, and is expected to be opertational well into the 20-teens.

Mostly comes from procurement prices over the F/A-18E/F programme which is over $50million a unit as opposed to the JSF which is supposed(not bloodly likely IMO but supposed) to run in the $30million figure.

With procurement of the JSF coming as early as 2005, I don't really see a point for the Super Bug.(Especially considering supposed lower survivability as a strike fighter.)

It's expected that the Hornet will see service till 2020, while the F-14D soldiers on till the late 20-teens.(Their main operational deficiency is simply from age.)

Again, I'm curious as to your history. The F-14 was not initially envisioned as a strike platform, but as a pure fleet interceptor. Strike capabilities were not even considered until the plane was over 15 years old.

I concede on this point. Faulty info, especially considering I even have two referrences already pointing that out. :(

What? Now I KNOW you're getting inaccurate information. The Hornet was developed from the outset as a multi-role fighter, and has ALWAYS carried the F/A designation.

Initial designator is F-18, with there being a dedicated A-18 varient(skipping ahead quite a few numbers in the attack department.) It's been stated several times throughout publications that the F/A designator was "strictly" unofficial, despite the fact that the USN likes to use it in public.

The F/A-18 isn't really accurate anyway, if it were to tri-forces designation, it should've been called just the F-18, or AF-18.

Finally we agree on something. :) The F/A-18 has neither the payload of the A-6, the accuracy in payload delivery of the A-7, nor the long-range air-to-air capabilities of the Tomcat -- AIM-54 Phoenix missile, anyone? As with most multi-role craft, it is a jack of all trades, master of none (though in the Hornet's case, it is better than most).

The Hornet IS a master of close range knife fighting. No other fighter simply can match it in sidewinder range.(Though the F-16 has a better sustained turn-rate...but that's difficult to really use in comparasion to better AoA.)

Like I said, it should be used as a close-range support/dogfighting aircraft with a newer Tomcat varient handeling main interception and strike roles, rather than being used as the single USN carrier based plane.

Northrop/Boeing have been producing this fighter for quite a bit. Interesting to note that these beside Lockheed are the two major competitors for anything else the Navy does.(Considering Northrop acquired Grumman, and Boeing has pretty much absorbed anyone else...unfortunate in today's climate with all the layoffs involved.)

You keep mentioning this "quick replacement", yet fail to point out that the Navy has no clear date for replacing the Hornet (since the production schedule of the JSF is currently not set).

The TARPS Tomcat has been in service for 10 years now. The A-6 bomber variant has been gone for several years now (shortly after the Gulf War, replaced by Hornets), only the EA-6B remains. And as I mentioned, the Hornet is also replacing many Tomcats.

Price price price. The JSF being a tri-services programme will cost a LOT less than even the relatively cheap F/A-18 series. The Navy wants more destroyers and cruise missiles, think they'll keep spending on a fighter that's more expensive than it's sucessor?(Oh wait, they did do that with the F-14...)

The Hornet's replacing Tomcats due to the latter's age. F-14A airframes are up to the 20's in their airframe age(some as high as 27 years old) making them almost unusable in their intended operations(Most F-14A's are limited to specific low-G turns and aircraft speeds). And as an already in production fighter is cheaper than a cancelled one to procure, obviously they're replacing them with Hornets.

Replacements for the following are EA-6B with the F/A-18G Growler, F-14 TARPS with the F/A-18R.(A Hornet TARPS would be cheaper to use anyway.)

Oh, and FWIW, the A-6F that you mentioned earlier in the thread was really nothing more than upgrading existing A-6E craft with new wings and updated avionics. It was NOT going to be a new build, per se.

My doesn't that sound familiar? ;)

The A-6F if anything is close to the F/A-18E, in that it was more meant as a stop gap, and cost far more than it's useful price.

The AX programme though was a waste of money, it's too bad they didn't drop the whole "full stealth" concept.(I guess they thought they could create a fighter similar to the F-117, which performed like an A-7 besides it's stealth capability.)
 
Originall posted by Bandit LOAF
Hey, no Strike Commander references! What's wrong with you people?
Heh, I was just thinking of Strike Commander. Much of my extremely limited knowledge of real aircraft probably comes from that. :eek:

If I dare to bring up that F-22/YF-23 debate again: I know a game designers opinion hardly counts, but I remember reading the manual saying that the F-22 won because of "partially vectored thrust". What does that mean?

And where has the F-22 served, anyway? Even in the current campaign in Afghanistan, traditional fighters are being used.

And what's the difference between the F-117 and the B-2?
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
If I dare to bring up that F-22/YF-23 debate again: I know a game designers opinion hardly counts, but I remember reading the manual saying that the F-22 won because of "partially vectored thrust". What does that mean?
As OriginalPhoenix pointed out the F-22's only advantage over the YF-23 was agility. Thrust vectoring is similar in concept to WCP's rotating thrust pods on the Panther and Vampire. Instead of a rotating engine you have panels on the end of the engine exhausts. These panels can be angled, directing engine thrust in directions other than straight backwards. This can lead to an agility improvement of 50%.
To counter Nob Akimoto's statement that the F/A-18 is unmatched in close quarters knifefighting, trials with the X-31 EFM (Ehanced Fighter Maneuverability) proved that a fighter, with thrust vectoring capability, can consistently out-turn a fighter with traditional engine exhaust cones. The X-31 is a concept demonstrator aircraft demonstrating the advantages of thrust vectoring.

Originally posted by Wedge009
And where has the F-22 served, anyway? Even in the current campaign in Afghanistan, traditional fighters are being used.
The F-22 is still in testing. It has not seen active service yet.

Originally posted by Wedge009

And what's the difference between the F-117 and the B-2?
In terms of stealth the F-117 has angled panels along its entire surface, giving it a faceted appearance. The B-2 has a smooth contoured surface. Both designs maximize their stealthiness. In operational terms the B-2 is a strategic bomber, capable of deep penetration missions, standoff cruise missile carrier or general purpose ground attack. It has a 50,000lb (approx 25,000kg) payload. The F-117 is a sort of manned cruise missile. Its payload is 5000lbs and is limited to 2 bombs. Typically the F-117 would be aimed at a specific target, like some kind of command and control facility. A B-2 would be aimed at an entire base.
 
Ah, thanks. Forgot about the "self-articulating nacelles" thing. :)

I was wondering about the stealth bombers, because I thought it was a bit odd to spend money on two designs which (I thought) did the same thing.
 
Ah...JFII...I remember that game well...well, sort of...considering I NEVER ACTUALLY FINISHED A SINGLE MISSION...

I did land on a carrier, which looking back at it wasn't much more difficult than in WC...how odd...

Poor JetFighterists...assuming they still exist...worse off than us...only four games...and one of them being that gawdawful Jetfighter IV...

Originally posted by WildWeasel

Angular *and* triangular? NO WAY!

Do you have a point other than my pitiful postings or are you just going to sit there and fluff yourself? :p

Originally posted by Wedge009

And what's the difference between the F-117 and the B-2?

YOU FOOL! The F-117 [Nighthawk] is SMALL and ANGULAR! The B-2 [Spirit] is LARGE and ROUNDISH! And its MANY TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE! NEVER QUESTION THE WILL OF THE DOD!

Erm... :looks back at post: ...nevermind WW :)
 
Originally posted by Hoops
The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's equivelent of the F-15C, only with strike capability. It even looks a lot like it.

Actually the FA-18 was developed for the same role as the F-16, originally...It failed, but in doing so it became something greater...um, something like that...anyway the Navy picked it up because it had two engines...and the rest is history. I think.

It's also interesting to note that if the F-117 is ever used by Canada, it'll be known as the CF-117. Its also worthy to note I'm very tired right now.
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
It's also interesting to note that if the F-117 is ever used by Canada, it'll be known as the CF-117. Its also worthy to note I'm very tired right now.

And they named it *Rapier* :p
 
Originally posted by Penguin

To counter Nob Akimoto's statement that the F/A-18 is unmatched in close quarters knifefighting, trials with the X-31 EFM (Ehanced Fighter Maneuverability) proved that a fighter, with thrust vectoring capability, can consistently out-turn a fighter with traditional engine exhaust cones. The X-31 is a concept demonstrator aircraft demonstrating the advantages of thrust vectoring.

I haven't seen an X-31 in operational eval, much less active duty.

Out of current fighters, the Hornet IS the defacto number one close duty fighter.(The Raptor should beat it to a pulp, and the Su-27 varient fixed with thrust vectoring might too.)
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
Ah...JFII...I remember that game well...well, sort of...considering I NEVER ACTUALLY FINISHED A SINGLE MISSION...

I did land on a carrier, which looking back at it wasn't much more difficult than in WC...how odd...
I vaguely remember JFII, but mostly because it was a great surprise to me at the time to finally see the F-16 in a game. I finished at least a few missions though, and carrier landings weren't a problem :).

Now F-29... that was a challenging game (which also allowed you to play with the F-22). You always landed on solid ground, but dang it was difficult - when I told a friend I had learnt to land, he didn't believe me until I showed him :). And it was made even more difficult by the fact that unlike most other sims, it did not let you take five missile hits... and live. One or two missiles were always enough. Fortunately, it also had a really wonderful eject option - none of that annoying button combination stuff that makes timely ejections almost impossible in other games - you just had to tap ESC twice.
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
YOU FOOL! The F-117 [Nighthawk] is SMALL and ANGULAR! The B-2 [Spirit] is LARGE and ROUNDISH! And its MANY TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE! NEVER QUESTION THE WILL OF THE DOD!

Erm... :looks back at post: ...nevermind WW
Erm, thanks Bob. I thought you had actually grown some sanity over the last few posts since your Tolwyn essay...

Say, Quarto, are you returning to your regular posts again?
 
Nay, Wedge. I've returned to actually checking the general forum at all, but not to regular posting.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Hmm, what are the earlier ones? F-13 and such.

Most of the single-digit designated fighters were Naval fighters under the old designation system:

F-1: North American FJ-4 Fury, the naval version of the F-86 Sabrejet.

F-2: McDonnell F2H Phantom

F-3: McDonnell F3H Banshee

F-4: Of course, the F-4 was the McDonnell Douglas F4H Phantom II (pre-McNamara Air Force name F-110 Spectre)

F-5: Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter

F-6: Can't remember what the F-6 and F-7 were

F-8: Ling-Temco-Vought F8U Crusader

F-9 was a failed concept.

F-10: Can't remember

F-11: Grumman F11F Tiger (the reason the later F-5E was called the Tiger II)

YF-12: Experimental Lockheed interceptor

F-13: There was no F-13.
 
Back
Top