Which fighter as the best carrier based plane?

thanks… 🙂

Your welcome………… 🙂

FLY NAVY 😎

i love migs but i live in australia and ive seen F-18s fly by when i was at the beach, i reckon the F-18 super hornet is the best plane for aircraft carriers currently.

Air to Air Combat.com

thanks… 🙂

My point is that those countries chose F-35 for stealth air to air combat and not SEAD when F-35 cant carry key munitions internally… anyway i think i will end my arguments on F-35 here…

once again, u gave me a quote from a supposed navy pilot going against an airforce pilot… with rather crypted words… and i’m not too sure if there is any “FLY NAVY” superiority complex injected in…

and at the end of the day, these pilots are very experienced ones, going against the national guards which probably doesn’t fly the plane outside of north america… does its say alot about the hardware? i dun think so…

and this thread is really about naval fighters, and last but not least Eagle is not considered more manueverable than S.Hornet, Rafale, Flanker, etc…

P.S. I would really appreciate a link on F-35 vs S.Hornet load and range. Thanks.

Air to Air Combat.com

My point is that those countries chose F-35 for stealth air to air combat and not SEAD when F-35 cant carry key munitions internally… anyway i think i will end my arguments on F-35 here…

once again, u gave me a quote from a supposed navy pilot going against an airforce pilot… with rather crypted words… and i’m not too sure if there is any “FLY NAVY” superiority complex injected in…

and at the end of the day, these pilots are very experienced ones, going against the national guards which probably doesn’t fly the plane outside of north america… does its say alot about the hardware? i dun think so…

and this thread is really about naval fighters, and last but not least Eagle is not considered more manueverable than S.Hornet, Rafale, Flanker, etc…

P.S. I would really appreciate a link on F-35 vs S.Hornet load and range. Thanks.

This Quote was from a earlier thread regarding the F-15C vs F-14D……..I am not the author I just copied and pasted the reply. (i.e. FYI) 😀

Note: The Squadron was VF-202 flying F-14A’s……………..not the latter D Model.

The eight years I was associated as on ordnanceman on the F-14 before my squadron transitioned to the Hornet 1999 I will say this from my first hand personal accounts. When my squadron went on a two week det to go play with the Oregan Air National Guards F-15s too many times the F-15s were coming back first because they were shot down and had to exit the TACTS range. I asked my skipper (commanding officer) at the time (who happened to be one of the pilots that shot down a Libyan Sukhoi in ’81) how the flying with the F-15s were going and he was smiling ear to ear saying it is not going good for the Eagle drivers. After the 1st week we were not allowed to simulate anymore AIM-54 shots with the F-15s. I watched on two occasions the video of the TCS and HUD and most of the time it was the F-15 in the pipper with the shoot cue appearing. At the end of the day both aircraft serve their designed purpose admirably and both are combat proven warriors. But as one combat pilot is quoted as saying “It is not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it is the size of the fight in the dog that does. FLY NAVY!

This Quote was from a earlier thread regarding the F-15C vs F-14D……..I am not the author I just copied and pasted the reply. (i.e. FYI) 😀

The eight years I was associated as on ordnanceman on the F-14 before my squadron transitioned to the Hornet 1999 I will say this from my first hand personal accounts. When my squadron went on a two week det to go play with the Oregan Air National Guards F-15s too many times the F-15s were coming back first because they were shot down and had to exit the TACTS range. I asked my skipper (commanding officer) at the time (who happened to be one of the pilots that shot down a Libyan Sukhoi in ’81) how the flying with the F-15s were going and he was smiling ear to ear saying it is not going good for the Eagle drivers. After the 1st week we were not allowed to simulate anymore AIM-54 shots with the F-15s. I watched on two occasions the video of the TCS and HUD and most of the time it was the F-15 in the pipper with the shoot cue appearing. At the end of the day both aircraft serve their designed purpose admirably and both are combat proven warriors. But as one combat pilot is quoted as saying “It is not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it is the size of the fight in the dog that does. FLY NAVY!

Well, I guess we will have to disagree? Personally, I don’t see your arguements nor does the US and the Goverments of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Norway, Italy, Spain, etc. etc.

As for the Tomcat again I refer to what is common knowledge! While I don’t claim the Tomcat wins every WVR engagement. My “point” is that it has a good record and could and did hold its own with its contemporaries. As for the man hours vs flight hours. The Tomcat did require much more especially compared to new types like the Super Hornet. Thought most of the man hours published are for the earlier F-14A’s not the latter F-14D’s which required much less. That said, the Tomcat is still a 1970’s Fighter and would never be as easy to maintain as a brand new 4.5 or 5th Generation Fighter.

FLY NAVY

The internal fuel for a F/A-18 E is 14,400lbs and 19,624lbs for a F-35C. So, the Lightning carries 5,224lbs more of fuel internally. Which, translates into 26-27% more fuel with less drag. Did I add that the F-35C also had more wing area and along with less drag than a Super Hornet! Of course during all mission the Super Hornet will more than likely carry stores of one kind or another adding to its RCS and even more drag. Remember, those canted wing pylons! As for Stealth Capabilities the US Military clearly believes in it. As does all of the JSF Partners. Further, even the Chinese and Russian Goverments are planning on Stealth Fighters. So, don’t blame me if I am not at least a little skeptical about your theories.

Would really appreciate if there is a link… thanks!

I have no doubts about F-35’s stealth capabilities in air to air combat, I also think that F-35 will have advantages over conventional aircraft in strike roles due to stealth… but i am not convince that F-35 is the best option in strike roles to perform SEAD operations against heavily defended grounds because its not completely stealthy against ground radars (its exhaust exposes lots of RCS) nor am i convince that F-35 will render other naval fighters obsolete… because other naval fighters are capable of providing other means of SEAD ops… like carrying cruise missiles… of course F-35 can be used to carry such loads too, but then it will lose its stealth characteristics…

As for the Tomcat’s record in ACM (or WVR if you like?) it is very well know and widely published. If, you doubt me you clearly can find several reliable sources from former Tomcat Pilots like Snodgrass or Heathly to name just two. Further, respected authors like Tom Cooper are also a good source. Personally, I remember several in the book about Top Gun telling of many exploits of then Cdr Heathly.(spelling?) who had many very successfully WVR engagements with Hornets and Eagles. Regardless, my point isn’t that the Tomcat was the best dogfighter. More to the point it had a reasonable odds of winning and combined with a two man crew, APG-71, IRST, 27,000lbs GE-110’s was clearly a fighter to be taken seriously! The WVR arguement doesn’t mean that much anyways as most Air Combat happens at BVR………..That’s two for the “TOMCAT”.

Tomcat can win WVR, which i agree too, but are u telling me Eagles and Hornets doesn’t have successful WVR engagements against the Tomcats? those engagements are likely strongly coupled with the pilot capabilities, rather than aircraft superiority…

and without AWACS, can Tomcat claim absolute BVR engagements, against the likes of Rafale, S.Hornet and Flanker?

You must be kidding! 😮

now u gave me this and thumbs down, when i cast my doubts about Tomcat’s WVR, and all u can quote are some Tomcat pilots feedback (not exactly bias free, if uask me), and none from other naval fighters quoted in this thread… while i gave u clear evidence of fighter designs that dictate Tomcat being less capable in WVR… given equal pilot skills…

i also mentioned maintainence issues, u gave no answer…

i mentioned strike capabilities, no strong convincing counter… other than the fact that Tomcat can carry more weights… but this point is moot when u consider the fact that u need 50 odd hours to maintain Tomcat for 1 hour of flight mission… while S.Hornet would have flown 5 times more for the same duration… and i haven’t mention the Rafale…

The internal fuel for a F/A-18 E is 14,400lbs and 19,624lbs for a F-35C. So, the Lightning carries 5,224lbs more of fuel internally. Which, translates into 26-27% more fuel with less drag. Did I add that the F-35C also had more wing area and along with less drag than a Super Hornet! Of course during all mission the Super Hornet will more than likely carry stores of one kind or another adding to its RCS and even more drag. Remember, those canted wing pylons! As for Stealth Capabilities the US Military clearly believes in it. As does all of the JSF Partners. Further, even the Chinese and Russian Goverments are planning on Stealth Fighters. So, don’t blame me if I am not at least a little skeptical about your theories. As for the Tomcat’s record in ACM (or WVR if you like?) it is very well know and widely published. If, you doubt me you clearly can find several reliable sources from former Tomcat Pilots like Snodgrass or Heathly to name just two. Further, respected authors like Tom Cooper are also a good source. Personally, I remember several in the book about Top Gun telling of many exploits of then Cdr Heathly.(spelling?) who had many very successfully WVR engagements with Hornets and Eagles. Regardless, my point isn’t that the Tomcat was the best dogfighter. More to the point it had a reasonable odds of winning and combined with a two man crew, APG-71, IRST, 27,000lbs GE-110’s was clearly a fighter to be taken seriously! The WVR arguement doesn’t mean that much anyways as most Air Combat happens at BVR………..That’s two for the “TOMCAT”.

A Super Hornet doesn’t have the range of a F-35C clean nor loaded.

and ur source…? i would be glad to be proven wrong…

While I would agree the F-35 would loose much of its stealth carrying external stores. So, would the Super Hornet and to a much larger degree. On the otherhand the F-35 will be very Stealthy as soon as it stores are dropped while the Super Hornet will not!

in strike mission, against ground based radar or AWACS, there really isn’t any difference between a stealthy aircraft with external loads or a reduced RCS aircraft with loads… both aircraft will illuminate on radar screens as much as each other…

high frequency radars are able to pin-point any inconsistency under the wings… those external loads will present themselves more than the planes…

the F-35 will not be very stealthy because facing away from ground radars its exhaust, which is the biggest stealth loophole, will be reflected on radar screens… therefore, imo, F-35 remains a stealthy fighter against other fighters, but may not be that great against heavily defended grounds…

while F-35 will have some advantage, in terms of stealth, over S.Hornet, but the advantage is not overwhelming, nor significant…

As for Cruise missle and other significant munitions most are delivered at long range or by other platforms. (i.e. bombers, submarines, etc.)

If thats the case, why do navy still maintain super carriers with strike capable fighters? If based on ur strategies, then USN should just follow Russian doctrines of leaving the bombing jobs to powerful missile cruisers protected by fleet defence only naval flankers…

Regardless, your missing the point? In a high threat environment the F-35 can go in stealthy and hit high value targets. (i.e. SAM’s, Command & Control, etc.) After which in will return with external stores when the major threats are gone! The Super Hornet can do the latter but not the former………………….

read the second argument…

as for the Tomcats capablities in WVR I think its record speaks for itself.

what records? Its BVR/Phoenix records?

The facts about Tomcats are that:

1. it has lower thrust to weight ratio than other naval fighters!

2. and it has inferior wing loading figures than other naval fighters!

these are 2 important properties that a maneuverable aircraft should have… and mind u the plane the has the best figure of both matrix is the Raptor, coming in second is the Typhoon and with others like Rafale, S.Hornet, Eagle, Flanker, even J-10 or mirage 2000 or Falcon coming close at the back… Tomcat looks obsolete when u look at the chart of wing loading by TWR…

next is aerodynamics… while the Tomcat has pretty efficient flight profile in both the subsonic and supersonic envelope, thanks to its swing wing, but its also this swing wing design that doesn’t optimise close range combat maneuvering capabilities…

while the Tomcat performs better than other swing wings like Tornado, Mig 23/27, etc, thanks to a large center fuselage, which acts as extra wing area, but the design is inherently less capable in dog fights as compared to other LERX, canard-deltas laden designs…

range? based on just internal fuel, its roughly the same range as the Super Hornet… Flanker definitely has longer legs…

with increased wing area, F-35C indeed can carry more weights but not internally, and if carried externally, it loses its main advantage…

strike capabilities? just because of its stealth characteristics? if its capable of carrying cruise missiles and other significant air to ground munitions internally, then yes i would agree with u… so pls enlighten me on these aspects… :rolleyes:

EDIT: And you haven’t present me ur arguments on Tomcat being a credible WVR fighter in the face of other Naval Fighters…

A Super Hornet doesn’t have the range of a F-35C clean nor loaded. While I would agree the F-35 would loose much of its stealth carrying external stores. So, would the Super Hornet and to a much larger degree. On the otherhand the F-35 will be very Stealthy as soon as it stores are dropped while the Super Hornet will not! As for Cruise missle and other significant munitions most are delivered at long range or by other platforms. (i.e. bombers, submarines, etc.) Regardless, your missing the point? In a high threat environment the F-35 can go in stealthy and hit high value targets. (i.e. SAM’s, Command & Control, etc.) After which in will return with external stores when the major threats are gone! The Super Hornet can do the latter but not the former………………….as for the Tomcats capablities in WVR I think its record speaks for itself.

The F-35 can’t be the best choice for a carrier aircraft. …way too many strings attached… the only time you could use it would be in a coalition with the US beating up some little country that has defied them again.
It doesn’t matter what history of support you have with the US you have to be with them now to benefit from the scraps off their table. Do the wrong thing and they will turn on you in a heart beat.

The best carrier planes are planes you have control of yourself. They don’t need to be stealthy at the moment because no one you are likely to want to fight has stealthy fighters anyway. Personally I think the Soviet approach is best… leave the strike roles to the missiles. Whip out the large supersonic missiles from the Kuznetsov and replace them with a modern equivelent with twice the range (1,000-1,500km) with the same flight speed performance (mach 3 plus) for the strike role and that reduces the air groups needs to just airdefence and anti sub roles.
The Max weight of the Su-33 is 33 tons. The MTOW from the Kuznetsov for the Su-33 is 33 tons. It has no takeoff restrictions with regard to load. It can’t carry heavy external fuel tanks and is not cleared for large weapons like the Moskit or Yakhont or 1,500kg bombs. Its heaviest load is in the 6 ton range that would include dumb air to ground bombs for the light strike role which would be very unlikely to actually ever be used.

Why spend your money to develope the Super Hornet to replace the Tomcat when both will be obsolete by newer types shortly? Also, excluding the F-22 what fighter will offer more range, payload, and strike capabilities than the forthcoming F-35???? :rolleyes:

range? based on just internal fuel, its roughly the same range as the Super Hornet… Flanker definitely has longer legs…

with increased wing area, F-35C indeed can carry more weights but not internally, and if carried externally, it loses its main advantage…

strike capabilities? just because of its stealth characteristics? if its capable of carrying cruise missiles and other significant air to ground munitions internally, then yes i would agree with u… so pls enlighten me on these aspects… :rolleyes:

EDIT: And you haven’t present me ur arguments on Tomcat being a credible WVR fighter in the face of other Naval Fighters…

why are u throwing in F-22, F-35 yet again, when our argument is on how does Tomcat compares with the other Naval Fighters…? dun u have better points to back up ur claims? :rolleyes:

F-22 shouldn’t be in this thread at all in the first place… and granted there will be a naval variant for the F-35, but its still far from service in significant numbers… more over the only advantage F-35 has is aerial stealth, it probably lacks in other areas like range, payload and strike capabilities… and if u start loading stuff on its wings, u lose the stealth advantage…

so i dun think even if F-35 is introduce into service, it will render other fighters obsolete…

Why spend your money to develope the Super Hornet to replace the Tomcat when both will be obsolete by newer types shortly? Also, excluding the F-22 what fighter will offer more range, payload, and strike capabilities than the forthcoming F-35???? :rolleyes:

I don’t think anyone would question that newer 4 and 4.5 Generation Fighters are easier to maintain than the venerable Tomcat. Just the point with 5th Generation Fighters (i.e. F-22 & F-35) coming on line all of the former will be obsolete anyways………….. :rolleyes:

why are u throwing in F-22, F-35 yet again, when our argument is on how does Tomcat compares with the other Naval Fighters…? dun u have better points to back up ur claims? :rolleyes:

F-22 shouldn’t be in this thread at all in the first place… and granted there will be a naval variant for the F-35, but its still far from service in significant numbers… more over the only advantage F-35 has is aerial stealth, it probably lacks in other areas like range, payload and strike capabilities… and if u start loading stuff on its wings, u lose the stealth advantage…

so i dun think even if F-35 is introduce into service, it will render other fighters obsolete…

I don’t think anyone would question that newer 4 and 4.5 Generation Fighters are easier to maintain than the venerable Tomcat. Just the point with 5th Generation Fighters (i.e. F-22 & F-35) coming on line all of the former will be obsolete anyways………….. :rolleyes:

Well, first the Tomcat could be a very formidable opponent in the WVR Arena.

Tomcat could be a good opponent in WVR, but how does it compare to Hornet, Rafale, Flanker or even Super Hornet… I think u should know the answer…

Personally, I don’t think you would find many Eagle Drivers that would consider the venerable Tomcat as a easy kill even flying against the older F-14A’s and B’s let alone the “D”!

Eagle isn’t that potent in WVR in the first place… try Flankers…

[QUOTE=Scooter]As for a Striker the Tomcat could lift a very useful load over a respectable range including PGM from JDAM’s to many different Types of Laser Guided Bombs. [/quot]

Well, the Tomcat can theoritically be fitted with all sorts of AGMs, but how does it compares to Hornet, Rafale, etc in strike roles…

Also, as for maintenance the later F-14D was much better than earlier Tomcats.(i.e. A&B) Which, is often overlooked. 😡

The truth is Super Hornet, Rafale and Hornet still maintained at a fraction of the cost and time needed for Tomcat… I suspect even the Flanker is friendlier in maintainence…

Well, the F-16 has been built (assembled) in several European countries… with major parts built in those and other countries. (as were the F-104, F-4, etc.)

However, those agreements were reached after it entered service in the USAF… those other nations had no say or participation in the specifications, design, or development of the F-16 (or the other aircraft mentioned).