Just a reminder:

.
.
.
.
.
.

please try your very best to restrict to ONE PICTURE… NOT ur entire ALBUM …

Thanks! :diablo:

Air to Air Combat.com

thanks… 🙂

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…

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…

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…

The Tomcat is indeed a good carrier based fighter in terms of fleet defence. However that is largely restricted to BVR engagements due to phoenix, i’m not too sure if its that great a fighter in WVR. Neither do i think that Tomcat is superior to other fighters in strike roles.

Last, but not least, Tomcat is just too unfriendly in terms of maintainence and cost and that is one critical point in operational readiness, operational longetivity and safety!