Amiga500So to put this BS to rest: 2016 delivered jets will be full Blk3C F-35s, not training, Blk2, or unfinished in any way.
ha ha ha
no chance.
The only 3 blocks about 2016 F-35s will be the 3 blocks its sitting on during repair to replace broken parts.
LM have f**ked the US taxpayer over… again. But expect the silly little “patriots” to leap to their defence. Sheep. Stupid stupid sheep.
Amiga500His flat statement is that, for 95% of current missions, he would rather have an F/A-18E/F than an F-14D (for reasons starting with superior avionics and going on from there).
He hated the Tomcat’s borderline control-ability on carrier landing approaches, as well as other issues.
No need to comment on the first.
I wonder how much of the second can be attributed to the FBW system on the Hornet?
He rates the Super Hornet/AMRAAM combination as better than the F-14D/Phoenix combo for everything except maximum range, and considers the only advantage the F-14D had as an airframe was range.
The former is again avionics related (and I’m sure there is nothing stopping an F-14 throwing an AMRAAM further than an F-18.
The latter, I am somewhat surprised at.
The Tomcat could only carry 8 missiles while the Super Hornet can carry 10… and the SH can use all of them against any target in the missile’s range. The Phoenix was a large-target-only missile… it was not maneuverable enough to deal with fighters, sea-skimming missiles, and maneuvering missiles, and any time you carried those you were hampered against fighters.
Yep, but the Tomcat can carry 8 missiles for far longer. Due to the higher speeds it can reach, it can also add more range to the BVR missiles.
In addition, if the AIM-54 were to be permanently dropped in favour of the AIM-120; then the underbody rails could be reposition to take advantage of the smaller missile radii, enabling more to be carried. The F-14 has the MTOW to handle it, and missiles on the underbody rails add comparatively little drag.
The AIM-54 had a 15″ dia, while the AIM-120 has just a 7″ dia. So your looking at 8 AIM-120 under the body, at least 2 on the glove pylons + the 2 sidewinders = 12 AAMs.
It is extremely unfair to compare the 70s airframe designed with 70s avionics and 70s missiles to the 90s airframe with the 00s avionics and 00s missiles. Yet you folks keep on doing. Compare what the F-14 could have been to what the F/A-18 is.
Face it… despite the well-known factual problems with the Hornet design (lets not mention the fictional problems that keep re-appearing on discussion boards), it is still a better fighter and attack plane than the Tomcat was…
So it should be considering it has 30+ years of development knowledge in it.
An F-14 with the same avionics and munitions technology as the E-F would be a better fighter/attack plane. That has been my argument and will remain my argument.
it was only the missile that made the F-14 such a good bomber-interceptor.
Rubbish.
Bigger radar, longer loiter, longer range, higher intercept speed.
Amiga500And I still suspect there is some strange interaction going on between the LERX and the twin tail, creating a lot of drag. But maybe I’m wrong; it’s certainly too complex to really “see” this.
There were issues, with buffet associated with the vortex cores…
Dunno if they reinforced the Vfins on the Hornet or the F-22, can’t remember the details. Both programs needed dedicated examinations of similar problems.
Amiga500About the only valid issue, from a mission capability standpoint, that you have listed is fuel fraction. Inadequate elevator authority? I’ve never noticed that…..in fact, I’d say from my experience that it’s stabilator (using correct term here) authority is much more impressive, especially at low speed/high AoA, than most other jets out there.
You folks call it a stabilator?!?
I suppose youse jump to that ‘cos there is no trim tab.
The Hornet doesn’t use it as an aileron (=elevon) for high speed flight? edit: forget about this, seen you answered later on. That would technically make it an elevon rather than stabilator 😛
Our nose authority is actually pretty unreal.
But not when the wing flaps are deployed. i.e. on take-off.
Consider the pitiful moment arm (in pitch) the rudders will have, its a desperate solution to the problem!
Wing flex/wing drop? Is this related to actually flying the aircraft and employing it as a weapon system?
It was prevalent on the YF-17, the resulting structural mods pushed the A-D Hornet over spec weight.
Again, I have not noticed this, and in all my time flying the jet, I have never come back to a debrief and said “man, if only I didn’t have that wing flex, maybe I would have gotten valid hits”.
Oh, trust me, if you were in the YF-17, went to bank and nothing happened, you’d be bitching about it and rightly so!
Under heavy rolling loads, the wing would essentially flex out aileron movement – not to be confused with the roll reversal associated with shock induced BL separation in transonic flight (over a bad wing).
I guess we can blame the AIM-7 for the rudder toe-in settings for takeoff. And in a related way, I would agree that this was a design deficiency……the main gear mechanism, which allowed for carriage on sta 4/6, made the lever arm for the stabs on rotation to be pretty substantial. Is the toe-in required a big problem? No, absolutely not….hit the t/o trim button, and the rudders toe to 30 degrees, stabs to 12 deg nose-up (or manually to a higher setting depending on GW for a cat shot). Problem solved.
Its not ideal, the fix undoubtedly impacted MTOW weight (regardless of McAir/Boeing’s proclamations to the contrary). You simply don’t take off with what is essentially an airbrake on without impacting MTOW.
Amiga500If the specs are correct its combat range is much better than the F22, which is plausible due to its larger size, but how could it be so much lighter as well?
‘cos the Yankees eat too many burgers. The structural reinforcement necessary adds weight. :diablo: [/stereotype]
Its almost certainly an incorrect weight; OK, avionics have moved on a bit since the F-22, but they’ll not make that much difference to weight. Lockheed, despite my derision of the F-35, are not a bunch of chimps, the F-22 will not be carrying much “fat”.
Amiga500That is harsh IMHO. According to the info I have, the original Hornets are not overweight compared to any standard I can think of,
They were considerably over original spec due to the wing strengthening needed.
and similarly their fuel fraction is adequate as well.
In which case the engine sfc or the cruise drag is simply not where it needs to be.
As is widely acknowledged the wing design is compromised and it could use more thrust, but elevator authority would seem to be good enough, going by its reputation for low speed handling.
Get a photo of the Hornet on a cat about to take off… then take a look at the rudders.
Yet another band aid fix for yet another Hornet airframe deficiency.
Amiga500Just out of curiosity, what deficiencies of the SH airframe are you referring to here Amiga? I’m sure everyone is well aware of the canted pylon problems, but beyond that, I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
Are you serious?
For instance:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/F-18.html
The baseline Hornet airframe is a piece of sh!t. The super hornet airframe is even worse.
High drag, poor fuel fractions, wing flex, wing drop, the separation issues you refer to, inadequate authority of elevators, overweight… just a few of the problems the various F/A-18 variants have had or still have.
Amiga500Thrashing the Tomcat’s replacement because you somehow think it makes you seem smart is just a waste of time,
I thrash the Super Hornet as it is a deficient airframe.
There was very little wrong with the F-14 airframe. The avionics gave trouble, as did the engines. As far as I am aware, the airframe, despite the VG wings, gave relatively little trouble.
If you packed new engines and avionics into the F-14 airframe, you retain the superior platform in terms of payload-range, kinematics, allowable radar size etc etc.
Compare the MTBF and MMHFH of the APG-73 to the APG-79 to get an idea of just where maintenance time is spent and just how improvements in avionics are driving up MTBF and driving down MMHFH.
Your right, what is done is done and nothing that will be said (especially on a forum!) will change that. Won’t stop me ranting and raving about it like a lunatic though. :D:o
Amiga500But it’s obviously “fair” to suck out 50% more on the maintenance to keep this 60s design flying just for few jocks to have more fun.. 😎
Argh.
My truck is that the money burned on the SH program could have made the F-14 every bit as reliable and it would have better performance to boot.
I’m comparing what the SH is to what the F-14 could have been.
Amiga500Not really as long as my “company” will pay me a “Ferrari” to be two minutes earlier in office every day. Not worth the practical gains but a lot of fun for the driver at least. 😉
It is unfair to compare the maintenance costs of an aircraft designed in the 60s with one designed in the 90s and you damn well know it.
Amiga500Hmmm… I can’t say for certain but I’d be very unconvinced.
Basically the same aircraft (wing/fuselage) had 2/4 engines between A330/A340 (initial versions) – that will have a large impact on the weight (not load – although that will be affected too) distribution across the wing on ground/landing.
The bending moment from outer engine of the A340 would have loaded the inner wing spars heavier upon landing than the single engine of the A330, so a single larger engine shouldn’t be insurmountable I’d think.
In flight, there would be no tangible differences, a slight relief of bending moment between the engines, but thats it.
If sticking on a bigger single engine, maybe a couple of local ribs would need strengthening for the pylon mounting, but thats no big deal.
Amiga500More proper to mount LANTIRN centerline, replace one of the streamlined mounts for AIM-54.
No, no, no – no need to remove an armament mount.
Instead of having hinged front gear doors that open, have them slide circumferentially around the fuselage on a rail – the LANTIRN then goes onto this (along with the TV assuming the front end can be compatible). So the door itself can be one piece, and there is no hinge stressing.
I agree, my suggestion of the glove mounting point prob isn’t best, unless they duplicate on both sides… which has advantages… and disadvantages.
Amiga500Not completely true. The first blocks of F-18E/F had the same APG-73 radar as the F-18C/D. The radar has, of course, been replaced on the production line by the APG-79, & many (but not all: early ones would need major airframe modifications) Super Hornets built with APG-73 have been retrofitted with APG-79, but it is still true that the radar was not different until a few years ago.
Oh, fair enough.
I thought the two programs ran simultaneously and the SH was always slated for the -79. (Even if a few were delivered with old gear to get wings on deck quicker).
Some other systems & airframe parts were also carried over, though AFAIK also mostly replaced now.
Very few I thought.
Amiga500How about looking at a photo before you make a foolish mistake?
The aft end of the TCS is right at the fore end of the nose landing gear doors… are you proposing relocating the nose gear so you can put your modified LANTIRN there?
Or you proposing a new gear door with the LANTIRN integrated to its outside?
Awww no. So the TCS has to extend forward a bit to allow for room for the LANTIRN.
Or the gear doors form part of the pod on a sliding rail (i.e. the doors don’t open, they slide around the fuse with the pod remaining attached).
Or you take advantage of more compact electronics within the fuse/nose to mount alot of the LANTIRN/TCS back boards inside the fuselage.
Or even better, in a re-design relocate the whole thing to one of the gloves (since the glove vanes are gone that volume is free).
Tons of ways to work around it.
Amiga500In some superficial ways, true enough. More than 30% of the Hornet airframe “exists” within the Super Hornet though.
Irrelevant, the parts would all have required re-stress during design anyway, even if the tooling didn’t change.
With the aim being primarily to improve the reliability aspects of the Tomcat, the re-design and (presumable) elimination of the variable wings
Why eliminate the VG wings? They aren’t the sole source of big Tomcat maintenance hours.
The F-15A/B had a mmhfh of over 30. As the F-14 has aged, of course, its number rose towards hideous levels (over 70 mmhfh towards the end).
True, but it realy was little more than scaling up. It wasn’t a near complete redesign of the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft which the removal of the variable wings would have been.
The VG wings would stay.
A lot of the common types of upgrades (avionics, sensors etc) that most aircraft get were certainly possible but I can’t see the Tomcat being re-designed to make it as cheap and reliable as the Super Hornet being feasible or as cost effective…
Per aircraft, any updated F-14″E” would be more expensive than an F/A-18 E or F, no doubt.
But the aircraft would be much more capable and with the corresponding increase in capability, monies would be saved from other things (like having to fly tankers to support bug missions).
Sign In
