Want to know exactly how "lost in the woods" carrier aviation is?
Consider the fact that the proposed Boeing Super Hornet International, a huge leap ahead in capability over the F/A-18E/F and an even bigger leap over the legacy Hornet, simply returns Carrier Aviation back to the reach that it had during the 80's and 90's.
The F-14D Bombcat had greater range, speed, a decent payload, IRST (built in), an extremely long range missile and a two man crew to divide the workload.
Quite honestly the only thing lacking were engines to properly take advantage of a world class airframe.
IF US Navy Carrier Aviation had gone down the road of necking down to the F-14D instead of the Super Hornet then the Navy would easily be able to wait until a 6th gen fighter (developed to Navy specifications) came along.
As it is circumstances are forcing the Navy's hand. Potential adversaries will soon have stealth fighters and SU-30 aircraft that are at worst a match, if not better than the Hornet...Missiles are being developed that will ensure the safety of the launch aircraft so killing the shooter is no longer a possibility...and finally advanced anti-air systems are coming online that will negate any advantage that our own standoff weapon systems currently enjoy.
If the Navy decides to buy Super Hornet International tech then it'll be simply a blast from the past...not a real advancement in technology. As much as Naval Aviation hates it, they need the F-35 just to remain competitive.
Bit your tongue! ;)
ReplyDeleteNo variant of the Super Hornet will match what the Bombcat could have been. Adding CTFs will just make a draggy airframe draggier.
Of course the SH is much more maintenance-friendly than the Bombcat.
Boeing proposes two different engines. one is more fuel efficient and the other is more powerful. the more powerful engine could kill the drag issue and up other aspects of the planes performance.
DeleteLoved the big bird, the F110 powered beasts were the best.
DeleteDon't forget that the origins of the F18 is the mid 60s conceived, leaky turbojet powered, YF17/N300!!!!!! The weaknesses in current fleet were baked in almost half a century ago.
The engines won't kill the drag issues, just use brute force to push through them. It's still a draggy airframe, only made worse with CFTs.
DeleteThe original F-14A with inferior engines could pull 7Gs at MACH 2 and still do that when the airspeed would drop to MACH 1...7Gs at MACH 2!I love the F-35 but those 4,9 Gs at MACH 0,9 ...it just a huge step backwards...
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is this from Aviationintel blog:«The Attack Super Tomcat 21 (ASF-14) would be a new build, highly updated version of the legendary F-14. A true “Super Tomcat” in every sense of the word, the machine would boast a large increase in internal fuel (over it’s already massive capacity) via thicker wings and larger over intake “shoulders.” The jet would have an all new digital flight control system with larger surfaces, dropping its minimum speed by upwards of 20kts. It would utilize the more powerful GE-F110-129 afterburning turbofan for it’s powerplant, allowing sustained supercruise of mach 1.3+. Airframe enhacements would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design, which would have made it the most maneuverable US fighter ever. There was also talk about the airframe being able to later receive the F-22s F-119 or F-120 derivative motors, resulting in a predicted supercruise of mach 2.0 or more!»
What about FA/XX ?
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard much about it lately
Agree about the F-14 but not about the FA-XX. There will never be another navy only fighter.
ReplyDelete-- an FA-XX would be a larger and much more sophisticated plane than the F-35, therefore it will take longer and cost more to develop
-- Now consider that the F-35's cost would be prohibitive if the production run was cut to 1000 planes, but the entire production run for an FA-XX wouldn't be more than 500 and would probably be more like 250.
The FA-XX program would start at the bottom of a death spiral and just implode from there.
not if the next fighter follows the russian example and only has partial stealth. if stealth is limited to the front portion of the airplane then it could happen. the only reason why the F-35 was born is because Congress pushed a joint fighter thinking it would save money. that is obviously in doubt now. i think a return to batches of fighter in the F-15, 16, 18 type is going to come back in style besides, the Navy is already buying a unique fighter as we speak.
DeleteI'd like to see FA-XX be an all-aspects stealth fighter with good range, kinematics and bomb/missile load. This probably means a large aircraft. I'm fine with that. Trying to squeeze 10 lbs into an 8 lb sack gets us in too much trouble. It needs to be multi-mission. None of this "not a pound for air-to-ground" nonsense.
DeleteHow much more "sophisticated" it needs to be, I'm not sure. Let's try to manage risk for once, and not push the envelope across the board.
I see your point but the problem is that if a new plane is not truly 6th gen it will not offer enough advantage over the F-35C to get any traction but, if it is 6th Gen it's not affordable. Catch 22.
DeleteIt keeps coming back to the production volume being far too low. The fact is that the volume for Navy procurement can't even support another 5th gen fighter using all the F-35 lessons learned. Then there's the fact that the USAF will fight the program tooth and nail to both protect F-35 volume in the short run and to make sure that the 6th gen fighter will be tailored to them in the long run. They will not risk being forced to buy a Navy design, even though history has shown us it's a good way to go.
What about export sales? Everybody who could even think about will have already broken the bank on F-35s (and none of them were interested in the F-35C).
Just an aside: the idea of the F-35 'jointness', and the ridiculous idea that you could throw VTOL into the mix without massive cost and performance penalties, all came out of the pentagon. The pentagon pushed it to congress not the other way around.
the official history says otherwise.
Deletejsf.mil details that the one of the key predecessors for JSF was the STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) 1987-1994. If you look at this program, both on jsf.mil and other sites, you'll find that the ideas of combining a VTOL and CTOL variants into one plane and producing a common plane for USMC, USN and USAF all came from there. This program was run by the Navy, via the Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC)and predates the Bottoms Up Review which is normally credited with 'forcing' a joint program on the pentagon.
DeleteThese ideas were continued on through CALF into JAST and JSF and were pushed by the Pentagon all the way. I have never seen any reference to any service branch or the pentagon protesting about the costs or risks of these ideas at the time, though if you have some I'd like the references so I can learn a little more about the JSF history.
you're working real hard to parse facts in order to prove your point. but you're still wrong.
DeleteCONGRESS ordered the programs combined. that's just a fact. you can twist, message and try to reason yourself into a particular belief but in the end, you're wrong.. oh and if you think i didn't know about the JSF.mil site then you're also wrong. where do you think i got the info that CONGRESS COMBINED THE PROGRAMS.
I never meant to imply you didn't know about jsf.mil, I referenced it because that way we wouldn't get into an argument about source validity.
DeleteThe first time congress in mentioned on the history on jsf.mil is when congress ordered the cancellation of NATF in 1991 and got involved in the A-X / AF-X (1992-93). The first time the site mentions congress merging programs is ASTOVL and JAST in '94. (and yes, I know you know all this already).
What I am saying is that the 'one size fits all' concept came out of the ASTOVL program, which had been running for four years before the NATF cancellation, 6 years before the A-X cancellation and 7 years before the congressionally ordered merger of ASTOVL and JAST.
What jsf.mil does not tell you is that the USAF's multi-role fighter (MRF program, also listed on jsf.mil as a jsf lead in program) was cancelled by the Pentagon because it made more sense to the pentagon to combine the USAF and USN/USMC requirements into a single program that combined VTOL/CTOL/tri-service. This lead directly to CALF whosee combined requirements were bundled directly into the JSF program.
So basically jsf.mil specifically says that two programs based on a tri-service, 'one size fits all' project were direct feed ins to the JSF program and both existed well before the congressionally mandated merger. These are all facts, no twisting required.
i would let this go and simply ignore your last statement but it really irks me how people these days massage facts to fit their beliefs/belief systems.
Deleteyou make specific statements about what the website says and then you add a bit of conjecture/wishful thinking/want something to be true right in the middle of it. what part am i talking about? this....
What jsf.mil does not tell you is that the USAF's multi-role fighter (MRF program, also listed on jsf.mil as a jsf lead in program) was cancelled by the Pentagon because it made more sense to the pentagon to combine the USAF and USN/USMC requirements into a single program that combined VTOL/CTOL/tri-service. This lead directly to CALF whosee combined requirements were bundled directly into the JSF program.
that's just fallacy and fantasy. the official website clearly lays out how congress forced the merger of all the services separate programs.
THAT'S JUST THE FACTS DUDE.
Congress forced the combination of programs that were already tri-service.
DeleteThe first time jsf.mil mentions congress merging programs is ASTOVL and JAST in '94. ASTOVL was going tri-service and VTOL/CTOL before the merger. globalsecurity.org has full documentation on this. What about JAST? Well JSF.mil says it was tri-service from the start. So what jsf.mil says is that congress forced the merger of two separate programs that were already tri-service and one of which was CTOL/VTOL.
So even if you just read jsf.mil thoroughly, you know that tri-service at least came out of the pentagon. If you go to globalsecurity.org, or some other sites, you will see that the USN was pushing tri-service and combined VTOL/CTOL.
Finally, don't take my word for it, take LockMart's word for it. Here's a link to LockMart presentation that specifically says JSF came from the tri-service JAF program, which your own jsf.mil tells us is just another name for CALF, which came before JAST which is the program that Congress ordered merged.
LockMart presentation: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40587611/Team_23_JSFppt---Joint-Strike-Fighter-_JSF_-F-35
dude, you're turning into a sad joke. its pre-JAST that is pertinent in this discussion. or rather would be if i decided to continue it. but you're just another one of those that insists on being right no matter what facts are presented. long short. you're wrong, i'm bored and this is over. at least my part of it.
DeleteYou make my head explode with this F-35 cheerleading. I know that it is the only game in town for your beloved Marine corp, but God almighty, the F-35 is a PIG. Go read about the F-111/TFX program, where you had McNamara force the Navy and Air force to take a jack of all trades, master of none aircraft. Incidently, that debacle lead to the F-14. The F-35 is repeating that history. Wing loading of an F-105, whcih was shredded by the Mig 21 in Nam. Fire suppression equipment removed to save weight. Poor acceleration. Poor turn rate. Poor top speed. Not a dogfighter in the elast. Poor range. Limited payload. Poor visibility. The pentagon lowered the requirementwhen the F-35 did not meet the standards. You mentioned the rise of Chinese and Russian stealth fighters. They will butcher the F-35. Get real. You cheeleaders are going to get a lot of pilots killed. You really need to take a cold hard look at this piece of crap.
ReplyDeleteIt's a @#$%!! shame that (then) Defense Secretary Dick Cheney didn't allow the Navy to go ahead with one of the Tomcat 2000 proposals. The now wasting away in the boneyard F-14 Tomcats had longer range and could carry a heavier weapons load than ANY of the F/A-18 Hornets - including the latest F/A-18E/Fs!
ReplyDeleteTake a look at some of Boeings F-15SE or "Silent Eagle" proposals and imagine that applied to a Navy F-14 Tomcat. Supposedly the idea of using the F-22 Raptors, F119-PW-100 engines was explored (probably as part of Grummans "Tomcat 2000" proposals) at one point(and unfortunately I can't find an online source for that). Although I can recommend "Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story" by Paul T. Gillcrist. See http://www.amazon.com/Tomcat-The-Grumman-F-14-Story/dp/0887406645/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364421912&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=Tomcat!+The+Grumman+F-14+Story+Paul+T.+Gillcrist%2C+Rear+Admiral
It covers the history of the F-14 (at the time it was written) including a chapter on the Tomcat 2000. Ahhhh, the road not taken!