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.)